The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, before business begins, may I take the opportunity to inform the House that I shall be undertaking a ministerial visit to Guernsey on Monday 1 and Tuesday 2 November? Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Plastic Bags Tax

Lord Dubs: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have to levy a tax on plastic bags; and in which other European Union countries there is already such a tax.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I understand that the Republic of Ireland has a plastic bags levy and that Denmark's tax on packaging has a special rate for plastic bags. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer keeps all taxes under review. The Government have no plans to introduce a tax on plastic bags.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, that is a very disappointing Answer. Is my noble friend aware that in this country we use 8 billion plastic bags a year; that the life of a plastic bag, when disposed of, is between 100 years and 1 million years; that plastic causes an enormous number of deaths and injuries to birds, marine mammals and other forms of wildlife; and that the Republic of Ireland's tax has reduced plastic bag usage by 90 per cent? Does my noble friend agree that the proposal to tax plastic bags would be good for the planet, good for wildlife and good for the Chancellor? When do the Government have a win, win, win solution?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am enormously grateful to my noble friend for those comments. Let me emphasise the fact that although the tax in Ireland has reduced, as my noble friend indicated, the usage of certain plastic bags, paper bag usage has increased significantly and more robust plastic bags, which are outside the tax, are used more extensively. Although we need to tackle every aspect of waste—that goes without saying—plastic bags comprise only 1 per cent of our waste. Therefore, the efficacy of such a tax in dealing with the broader issues would be quite limited.

Lord Rogan: My Lords, in September 2002 the Co-op introduced degradable bags, which take only three years to degrade instead of the normal 100 years. At the time of their introduction there was some concern that these bags were not as environmentally friendly as they could or, indeed, should be. Have the Government financed any research into developing environmentally friendly disposable plastic bags, and what progress has been made?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is a most constructive proposal, which the Government are looking at carefully. Further research is necessary. There is no doubt that the plastic bags in question, which are currently being used in a very limited part of the United Kingdom, have the very significant advantage of being reducible in a much more limited period. Therefore, we hope that research will show ways in which we can encourage that development.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, is it not the case, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, was indicating, that the reason why the normal supermarket bag is so offensive is not so much to do with its durability as the fact that as a nation we are inclined to be very casual about litter? It is the appearance of these bags all over town and country that really causes offence. What action are the Government taking to influence public opinion to reduce this menace?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I believe that we compare poorly with some other advanced countries in our control of litter. We have a greater tendency to drop litter in our public places and on our streets. That is why we are encouraging the prosecution of those who drop litter, sometimes with quite startling effects. The House will be aware of a prosecution only the other day for a limited infringement of the law. But this is also a matter of education. We certainly are concerned within schools that the next generation will do rather better than past generations have done in concern about litter in our public places.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, perhaps the Minister's observation that plastic bags make up only 1 per cent of waste and therefore it is not worth doing anything about it is one reason why the waste pile is ever growing as opposed to diminishing under the Government. Surely, if they tackled all of that 1 per cent we would be a large part of the way there. The point of the plastic bag tax is to change people's habits so that they use reusable bags—cotton bags, canvas bags and so on. Having seen some of the glitches that happened in Ireland, could not the Minister learn from that and introduce a very workable tax?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I did not seek to disparage the significance of plastic bags; I was merely saying that they still form a small, albeit very irritating, fraction of household waste. But we have specific, significant targets for recycling waste. Our percentage has increased from 12.5 per cent in 2001 to 14.5 per cent last year. We hope to hit our 17 per cent target and eventually the more ambitious target in 2004–05 of 25 per cent. Those are significant targets; we are moving sharply in the right direction. But there is no doubt that considerable effort is needed, both through incentives and public education, for us to improve on recycling waste. The House will be aware of the intensive exercises carried out by most local authorities to increase that factor.

Lord Puttnam: My Lords, perhaps it would help my noble friend to know that in Ireland, where I live, it is not just a question of plastic bags constituting 1 per cent of waste; the ban has literally transformed the rural and urban landscape. I would have hoped that that would be an additional consideration. Secondly, heavier quality plastic bags, which are real shopping bags, cost one euro and invariably the money goes to charity. I cannot help but think that the Government could look across the Irish Sea and follow what is a very good environmental example.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, of course the Government are always eager to learn from successful developments elsewhere. I merely sought to indicate the limited success of the Irish experiment. I bear in mind entirely the advantages indicated by my noble friend, who is in a position to attest to them. But we must look at the issue in the context of the totality of waste. I understand the noble Lord's point about thicker bags having the advantage of being chargeable and resources going to charity, but in due course those bags become waste and present problems, too.

Climate Change

Lord Ezra: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, in the light of the Prime Minister's speech on 14 September, they will introduce further measures to deal with climate change.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, we launched a review of the UK's climate change programme on 15 September. The review will provide an assessment of progress made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions since the programme was published in 2000 and to see if we are still on track towards our 2010 domestic goals. Where needed, we will look at where we should introduce new policies and measures and/or strengthen existing ones.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, but does he recall that the Prime Minister, in his speech on 14 September, after emphasising the gravity of the climate change situation, spoke of the need to invest in large-scale existing technologies and to stimulate innovation to new low-carbon technologies? Does he further recall that the Prime Minister went on to refer, among other technologies, to carbon sequestration, which would make coal usage fully consistent with safeguarding the atmosphere, and to combined heat and power, which almost doubles the efficiency of electricity generation? In the light of the Prime Minister's specific reference to those two developments, what further measures do the Government propose to take?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, there are already significant measures to develop existing technologies and to find new technologies. The specific ones to which the noble Lord refers have already received substantial government funding. Clearly, clean-coal technology of various sorts, including carbon sequestration, is part of the solution. The noble Lord is more familiar than most with the recent difficulties of the CHP market, but the Government remain committed to finding ways of stimulating CHP and other low-carbon and nil-carbon technologies.

Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the Prime Minister's blood-curdling remarks about the imminent threat to the people of this country from global warming are probably about as well founded as his earlier remarks about the imminent threat to the people of this country from weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Before any further speeches are made or action taken, would it not be a good idea if the Prime Minister asked his close friend and loyal colleague the Chancellor to instruct the Treasury to undertake a thorough cost/benefit analysis of this difficult issue?

Lord Whitty: No, my Lords, I do not accept that for one moment. In fact, to call warnings about global warming "blood-curdling" seems to me the height of irresponsibility. I am surprised at the noble Lord, Lord Lawson. This is one of the major problems facing the world. It is important that we tackle it in a cost-effective way. The Treasury and the Chancellor have been very involved in developing the best policy measures, support systems and R&D in order for us to be at the forefront throughout the world in tackling climate change. I commend my right honourable friend the Prime Minister's speech. It indicates how Britain is leading the world in this respect and not being dragged backwards by the kind of comments that we have just heard.

Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the target of renewable energies may be better achieved if something could be done about the anomalies that exist with planning permission? On the one hand, some of those who object to wind turbines, including His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, do so because they are highly visible. On the other hand, the Ministry of Defence and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds object to them because they are highly invisible to our pilots and, indeed, to rare birds. Can the Minister resolve that anomaly because they cannot be both?
	Does he know how many civil or military aircraft have been brought down in the past five years by wind turbines? How many rare birds, according to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, have been brought down compared with the small bird population, which has been reduced by 70 per cent in London by the erection of greenhouses and conservatories, for which planning permission has been granted but to which the RSPB has not objected?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord's basic point that some of the objections to wind farms, which we have debated frequently in this House, are based on quite absurd criteria. But it is important that the planning system operates and people and institutions are allowed to object. It is also important that the guidance on planning decisions favours renewable energy projects in so far as they are compatible with broader planning objectives.
	Renewable energy, whether in the form of wind farms or other low-carbon and nil-carbon technologies, is an important part of the future landscape. As regards the numbers concerned, I am not aware of a single aeroplane that has been brought down by a wind farm either here or anywhere else in Europe. Denmark, which has a long history of technology, found that bird populations, although initially affected, rapidly learnt to avoid wind farms, although it was obviously too late for some of them. Birds are able to change their routes just as much as human beings and, I hope, Royal Air Force pilots.

Baroness Billingham: My Lords, is the Minister aware that European Sub-committee D has just completed a report on climate change? It has taken six months. For all members of the committee, it has been an enormously interesting and instructive experience. In that report, we make some fundamental and powerful recommendations.
	Of course, it is a cross-party sub-committee and we are of a voice that this is something that we have to deal with here and now. Will the Minister lend his weight to the fact that we ought to have a very early debate on the report in this Chamber, which I am sure would be very interesting?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I very much welcome the report and the work that the noble Baroness and the other members of the sub-committee have put in. I do not necessarily agree with all of their conclusions, but I would suggest that the report is required reading for all noble Lords, including, perhaps I may venture, the noble Lord, Lord Lawson.
	Clearly, this is one of our major political, economic and environmental problems. We all need to understand it better and face up to the dilemmas identified by that committee. As regards a debate in this House, I would welcome such a debate, but, as the noble Baroness knows, that is a matter for the usual channels.

Lord Vinson: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that throughout the world there are 400 atomic power stations and 30 new atomic power stations currently being built? So we as a race are up to our neck in world atomic power development whether we like it or not. As this is the only long-term, inexhaustible CO2-free form of energy, is it not time that we stopped faffing about looking at silly green tokenism issues and got down to the one source of energy that can really save the planet?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, if I may say so, that, again, is a fairly irresponsible intervention. Green technologies and renewable technologies of all kinds will help to provide a diverse way of providing energy without the detrimental effect of carbon-based fuels. No one is saying that a particular form of energy—whether wind power or anything else—will supply the totality of the answer. But it is important to recognise that although nuclear power may be a low or near nil-carbon alternative, it is not a sustainable alternative until we have found the technology for dealing with the waste that emerges from it.
	The Government are not faffing about that. We are saying that we do not rule out nuclear power playing a major role. But that problem has to be resolved as, frankly, does the current problem of many non-carbon technologies. Nuclear is one of the most expensive in terms of carbon saved, as we see now in the amount by which the Government have had to underwrite British Energy's operations—and in future will have to, even at the cutting edge of nuclear technology.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, would the noble Lord say how much has been spent on the handling of nuclear waste?

Noble Lords: Next Question!

Teachers: Qualifications

Lord Walton of Detchant: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their response to the decision of the General Teaching Council that an experienced headmaster and mathematics teacher in the independent sector is not qualified, on retirement from his present post, to teach mathematics in a maintained school because he does not hold a postgraduate certificate in education.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the Government believe it right that anyone who wants to be recognised as a qualified teacher in England must demonstrate that he or she meets the required standards. A wide range of routes to qualified teacher status is now on offer, most involving an element of training. However, for very experienced teachers, including those coming from the independent sector, assessment-only options are available, some of which take only a few days or weeks.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response. She must of course agree that as a former president of the General Medical Council I cherish the independence of statutory regulatory authorities. However, while accepting the view of the General Teaching Council that it is important that qualified teachers, particularly in the maintained sector, should have a postgraduate certificate of education, is it not the case that if the system were so inflexible as to exclude from such status a teacher of the type mentioned in my question, then the rule, if not the law, is surely an ass?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly take the noble Lord through the processes. The system is certainly not inflexible. The problem was that Mr Parry-Jones, the gentleman in question, who I am sure would grace any school, went first to the General Teaching Council when he should have gone to the Teacher Training Authority in order to obtain the information available.
	Once the Teacher Training Authority understood that he was anxious to go through the assessment procedure, which is very rapid, it moved quickly. That afternoon the TTA contacted him and advised him that the University of Gloucester offered an accelerated QTS course based on assessment only, which takes just a few days. A meeting has now been arranged between Mr Parry-Jones and the University of Gloucester on 2 November. We look forward very much to having him in the teaching profession in the maintained sector as soon as possible.

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House why the fast-track scheme was withdrawn by her department last month? As a result of the fracas, what plans does she have to reinstate it?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the assessment course to which I referred has been offered by the University of Gloucester for some years. I shall have to write to the noble Baroness about her specific question. In order to generate the increasing numbers of teachers in the profession—we have the highest number of teachers since the early 1980s—we have sought to diversify the different routes by which people can come into the profession from employment, initial teacher training and the routes that we have been talking about in relation to the independent sector.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the key problem is not so much the lack of teaching qualifications on the part of potential teachers of mathematics who have mathematical qualifications, but the lack of mathematical qualifications on the part of many of those in state secondary schools who are currently teaching mathematics? What do the Government propose to do about that?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we are very conscious of that problem. The noble Baroness will know that the figures for mathematics vacancies have dropped by half over the past two years.
	We are looking to increasing the number of mathematicians in training. But, nevertheless, we have a significant number of teachers of mathematics who do not have post-A-level qualifications. The new remit of the Teacher Training Agency, which will come forward in the Bill, will make it clear that there will be a strong professional development route that it will take charge of, with a much greater subject focus. That is certainly one way, with additional courses and training, in which we hope to close those professional gaps.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I taught various Members of this House who have not done too badly in later life, although I have no qualifications. While I would not say the word "talent", does not the Minister think that it has worked? Why be rigid about this? Is the Minister prepared to accept the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, a professor, can be refused the right to teach? I did it.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am sure that the former students of the noble Lord in this House are a great credit to him, and I would quite like to know who they are. Clearly at least one has made it to the Front Bench.
	I shall reiterate what I have said. Far from closing off the routes for quality teachers with experience, energy and commitment, we want to see them come back to the state sector at whatever stage they are prepared to do so. However, we have to ensure that qualified teacher status is a high and uniform standard. That must remain our primary concern.

Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, as a governor of the school of which Mr Jones-Parry is headmaster, can I ask the Minister to correct the Hansard reference? His name is not Mr Parry-Jones.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, all Ministers make mistakes of that kind, but I stand corrected and I am mortified. I shall certainly see what I can do.

Railway Franchises

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the procedure for the awarding of new rail franchises includes an assessment of past performance; and, if so, at what stage of the bidding process this assessment occurs.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, potential bidders are already able at pre-qualification stage to state their track record and the Strategic Rail Authority has taken this into account. This process will be refined further following the recently published White Paper, The Future of Rail, which proposes that evaluation of past performance will be a factor in awarding franchises.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Is he prepared to say whether the new refinements will include improved transparency both for the industry and for passengers? Does he not concede that where there are examples of perfectly well run franchises being replaced by operators with a less good record elsewhere, it leaves open the question that bidders have offered too much for too little, and that at some point the public will be required to bail them out?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, although past performance is to play a part in the criteria, the House will recognise that the main features of those criteria are the nature of the bids and commitment to the improvement of the future service. Those will be the most important elements of the criteria for all bids. However, it must be recognised that past performance does have its part to play, although the Government, on behalf of the community, have a direct interest in ensuring that bids promise both improved performance and can establish the basis on which that improvement can be achieved. That is what we expect to see in the bids for the considerable number of franchises which will fall due in the fairly near future.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, in declaring an interest as someone who has used the train to travel backwards and forwards between Manchester and London for more than 40 years, can I ask my noble friend to emphasise in his assessment of these matters the fact that Virgin Trains, which presently runs the service, has now come up with Excuse No. 75 for its delays and cancellations? I hope that he can give an assurance that both past and current performance will play a part in assessing whether that company's franchise should be renewed.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I hear what my noble friend says and I am aware that many Members of this House and of the other place have suffered considerably as a result of the under-performance of the West Coast Main Line over the years, together with a significant section of our community. However, it will be recognised that a substantial element of those delays has been related to the renewal of the track, which has involved massive investment over the past decade.
	I emphasise a point that I have made on previous occasions: this is the busiest main railway line in the whole of Europe. As a consequence, renewal of the track has presented some significant problems. Nevertheless, Virgin Trains will have to stand the test of past performance, and no doubt it will attest to the fact that its cross-country services have performed somewhat better than the West Coast Main Line. However, it is certainly the case that the criteria that will be established for operating the West Coast Main Line will take into account the fact that the substantial investment in track renewal on the line is now nearly complete.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, in the Government's White Paper, The Future of Rail, published in July, the Secretary of State announced plans to hand over responsibility for rail services in London to the Mayor. Can the noble Lord say what role Ken Livingstone will have in awarding new franchises for London?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, under the present arrangements, the Strategic Rail Authority will continue its role so far as concerns franchises, but the noble Viscount will recognise that it needs to take into account the local dimension of the services being provided. Not all franchises cover long-range, cross-country routes, and those which operate for London commuters are of great significance to the London economy and London society. Around 1.5 million commuters travel into London each day and therefore it is not surprising that the Mayor of London expects the local voice with regard to the provision of rail services to be heard at the appropriate time.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, turning to the case of the east coast franchise, which is being subject to the process of bidding at the moment, does my noble friend agree that it would be deplorable if a quality provider of the service were to be ditched in favour of an operator who offered just a cheap and cheerful one by proposing, for example, to take out train catering? What more does GNER have to do to demonstrate that it should win the franchise again, given that the franchise has cost the taxpayer nothing in terms of subsidy and, indeed, is contributing £6 million, as well as substantially increasing the number of trains and the number of passengers using them?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I shall not make a judgment from this Dispatch Box on the bidders invited to tender for that particular franchise. I have indicated that past performance will play its part. Moreover, my noble friend is right to point out that GNER can boast of a good performance. Nevertheless, let me be absolutely clear: future commitment and plans will be the main criteria for a successful bid. So far as the east coast franchise is concerned, other bidders are submitting strong bids, and of course under procurement law we must be fair to all bidders—new ones and those operating the existing franchises—when we invite bids.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the whole franchising process is flawed? Does he not agree that it needs to be revisited? The first lot nearly all resulted in bidders grossly exaggerating what they would deliver if they were awarded the franchises. Most of them failed and some went bankrupt. If we are driven into a situation where the lowest price wins, what is to stop bidders again exaggerating what they will deliver and thus letting down not only the Government and Members of this House, but also every customer and passenger in the railway system?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord's criticism of the first round of franchise awards has some merit. We all know the unfortunate consequences of failures in certain areas. However, we have learnt a lot from that experience. We now have in place rigorous criteria, ones that will have the benefit of scrutinising the past performance of train operating companies.
	The suggestion made by the noble Lord builds on the concept introduced by my noble friend Lord Faulkner; that is, that the cheap and cheerful might succeed. However, it is not the case that the cheapest bid will necessarily succeed. In each case the successful bid will be that which provides and guarantees the highest quality of service and the best value for money. They may not necessarily be the cheapest bids, but they will represent good value for money for consumers, which is the most important feature.

Influenza Vaccine

Lord Naseby: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the current situation regarding the supply of influenza vaccines for the "at risk" population.

Lord Warner: My Lords, the Department of Health has worked with suppliers to ensure that there is sufficient stock of influenza vaccine to meet the needs of the "at risk" population. Contingency stock, purchased by the department, has been made available to GP surgeries to meet any immediate shortfall.

Lord Naseby: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. It is all very well, but what happened to the risk strategy and the business continuity plan? Supplies are not available at all GP surgeries at the moment. Is it not a sad fact that unless the "at risk" population receive their jabs before 1 November, patients will undoubtedly suffer as a result, some of whom may sadly die? Is it not a shabby response from the Government that there was not a risk strategy for the problems that we currently face?

Lord Warner: My Lords, if I may say so in the vernacular, that is absolute nonsense. The Government made sure that there were around 14 million doses of flu vaccine available for this year—despite the problems in the Speke factory, which are well known—compared with 12 million administered last year. As of last week, just under 13 million doses have been distributed. The Government recommend that the flu vaccine is given from September to November before flu starts to circulate. We believe that all GP practices will have delivery of flu vaccines by the week commencing 8 November. This gives time to ensure that clinics can be set up to immunise individuals before the end of the month.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is not this an occasion when the Department of Health should be congratulated on keeping its eggs in many baskets rather than in only two as the United States Government have done?

Lord Warner: Yes, my Lords.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain who is at risk and who, therefore, is not at risk?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I do not know the diagnosis of the noble Earl but the Government have identified the "at risk" groups for some time. The "at risk" groups entitled to receive free flu jabs are those aged 65 or over; those who have a serious illness, including chronic heart conditions, chronic respiratory conditions, including asthma, chronic kidney disease, diabetes or lowered immunity; and those receiving long-stay residential home care of one kind or another.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the World Health Organisation has stated that a very dangerous type of chicken flu may appear at any moment? Are we prepared for this, especially in regard to those at risk?

Lord Warner: My Lords, the Government take account of the information provided each year by the World Health Organisation about particular flu strains that may be in circulation, as do other countries. We tend to get our flu following the southern hemisphere winter. This year we have ensured that the flu vaccine available takes account of last year's strain, Fujiian flu, and we hope that this will be appropriate for this year's flu when it comes.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, what guidance has the Department of Health given to GPs who have had to cancel flu clinics because of a lack of vaccine stocks? Has it informed them about alternative sources of flu vaccine stocks? Will the pilot programme to inoculate carers of vulnerable people still go ahead even though there is a shortage of vaccine?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I hoped I had made it clear from the figures that I gave earlier that there is not a shortage of vaccine. There has been a small delay—which I acknowledged—because of events in the Speke factory. We are well on target for making this information available. I shall look into the pilot study to which the noble Baroness referred and write to her. The department wrote to all flu immunisation co-ordinators in England on 28 September, 5 October and 21 October asking them to ensure that all GP surgeries in their areas were aware of the issue and giving details of how and where additional stocks of vaccine could be sourced.

Lord Chan: My Lords, what are the Government doing to encourage NHS members of staff to have influenza immunisation? How does this compare with immunisation given in past years?

Lord Warner: My Lords, immunisation of front-line health and social care staff has been recommended in the UK since 2000–01. Uptake in acute trusts last year was 14 per cent overall, up from earlier years. We are continuing to work with a number of trusts to ensure that immunisation levels among NHS staff are higher than they have been in the past.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, should not the high-risk groups include those people who live in the immediate vicinity of cancer patients with low neutropaenic counts?

Lord Warner: My Lords, the "at risk" groups are the result of a good deal of research, cost/benefit analysis and extensive consultation with experts in this area. I shall certainly look into the point raised by my noble friend and write to him.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, what is the Government's policy with regard to the immunisation of juries?

Lord Warner: My Lords, we assume that juries consist of mature adults who can make their own judgments in these matters.

Earl Howe: My Lords, is the Government's assumption that they will have enough flu vaccine based on the premise that the influenza season might start later than normal?

Lord Warner: No, my Lords. We know as a fact that last year about 12 million flu jabs were administered. We have organised ourselves to have available 14 million doses for this year, a buffer of 2 million doses. We know that we have distributed about 13 million doses. This provides for some improved take-up, either by NHS staff or the "at risk" groups.

Hunting Bill

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Whitty.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
	Clause 1 [Hunting wild mammals with dogs]:

Lord Donoughue: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 1, line 5, after "is" insert—
	"(a) registered, or
	(b) "

Lord Donoughue: In moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4 and 86A, which are grouped with it.
	The amendment, which, as is clear from the signatories, has cross-party support, seeks to reintroduce the concept of registration and licensing for hunting, as was in the Government's original Bill in December 2002. That Bill followed long consultation. First, there was the Burns report which, in 2001, concluded that hunting could not be proven to be cruel, and the noble Lord, Lord Burns, confirmed that in this House this very month. Without objective evidence that hunting is cruel—and that does not exist—there is no case for a ban; there is just prejudice.
	I remind the Committee that in 2002, the Minister, Alun Michael, conducted six months of consultation with all interested and expert parties. The aim, he said, was to have legislation based on evidence and principles—principles such as cruelty and utility. The present banning Bill ignores all that.
	When introducing the licensing Bill in December 2002, Mr Michael said that it was based on "a golden thread" of principles and evidence. The proposed ban is not; we are proposing to revert to the Bill to which Mr Michael was referring.
	In July last year, the Prime Minister told the Commons that he supported his Minister's compromise proposals in the registration Bill to which we wish to revert. All major countryside organisations support this compromise approach.
	These are the proposals—the principles based on evidence which this amendment and its consequential amendments propose to reinstate in the Bill. The amendment would remove the crude ban before us. I may disappoint some, but I do not propose to detain the House by repeating all the defects of the ban, which have been stated in this House again and again. Above all—I say that because it is my prime priority, as someone who does not hunt and never has—the amendment would remove the attack on the civil liberties of countryside people.
	Anyway, I have no need to go through the flaws in the banning Bill before us, because they have all been admitted by the Government. Mr Michael wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister last year saying that a complete ban would destroy the architecture of the original Bill. It would undermine its,
	"strong, simple framework of enforcement"—
	that is what we are proposing to reinstate—and would,
	"be perceived as pursuing prejudice rather than targeting cruelty".
	Exactly.
	In June 2003, Margaret Beckett wrote that the original licensing Bill—the one we wish to restore—was,
	"the strongest ever put forward".
	She said that no Bill on a simple ban had ever been thought to be workable. If cruelty is the main concern, she said,
	"I plead with colleagues not to wreck the licensing Bill".
	Exactly. We propose to respond to the Secretary of State's plea.
	In moving this and subsequent amendments, we are acting in what I believe is a true parliamentary and democratic spirit. What are we doing? For a start, we offer compromise. I need hardly point out that many supporters on our side have compromised and have moved significantly from their early inclinations towards laissez-faire to embracing registration. They have compromised; we have compromised. The Prime Minister and Mr Michael have stated in public that they want compromise. The Prime Minister has repeated that today. Well, they can achieve that—they can have that. So why, if they want compromise, do they support a non-compromising ban? That side has not yielded one inch, despite massive evidence that a ban would increase suffering. I say to the Prime Minister and to the Minister, if they want compromise, why not accept the compromise we offer?
	We also offer considerable consensus. We have the support of many, in all parties in Parliament. We have the support of the main countryside organisations. The polls tell us that only 1 per cent of Labour voters say that such a ban should be a priority for the Government. Two-thirds of the public say that the Government should listen to the House of Lords.
	In addition to offering compromise and consensus, we offer a rational approach to cruelty, based on tests, evidence and the principles that the Minister set out. We do not offer the irrational prejudice that is in the ban. We do not offer the greater degree of animal suffering that will follow the imposition of such a ban.
	Above all, we offer the Government their original Bill, based on consultation, principles and evidence. If they do not accept this rational compromise and use the draconian Parliament Act against their own original proposals, then my Government, of whom I am normally a most loyal supporter, will, in my view, be shamed and humiliated by their actions.
	I was once an adviser to the "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" programmes. We would have been happy to adopt this scenario as a satirical script in that programme, with the Government using the Parliament Act to resist their own proposals. But the two authors would have certainly said to me, "We won't get away with that because it is not credible". If it were not so tragic, it would be funny. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: Without wishing to inhibit debate on this, which I am sure will substantial, I thought that it might be helpful to indicate at this early stage how the Government's spokespersons intend to deal with the Committee. This is particularly important, since the first batch of amendments includes a number of the issues on which the Committee would need some guidance. This is, of course, a free vote, and I have on several occasions made it clear what my opinion is. However, as I indicated at Second Reading, my role here on the Front Bench is to facilitate and guide the Committee in consideration of the Bill.
	For that reason, and at this stage in the proceedings, neither I nor my noble friend Lady Farrington will vote on any of the amendments. I shall confine myself to pointing out to the Committee the relationship between the amendments before it, the original government Bill in the Commons, the Commons proceedings and the Bill finally adopted in the Commons and sent to this House.
	As there is some misunderstanding, which is probably my fault, I also need to clarify the Government's position on government amendments. I am recorded in Hansard as saying that the Government would table a number of amendments. In fact, we are tabling only one amendment in Committee which concerns the delay, and is in the Marshalled List as Amendment No. 56.
	I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Donoughue—I shall continue to call him my noble friend for these purposes.

A noble Lord: All purposes.

Lord Whitty: Almost all purposes. I am also grateful to those whom, I regret, I am likely to slip into calling the gang of four, who have tabled most of the amendments. They have presented us with a coherent set of alternative proposals. That, in a real sense, is an advance on the last time we discussed these matters in Committee and indicates that they are—belatedly—trying to engage with the Bill rather than simply kill it. But my gratitude is finite.
	The method of proceeding by effectively reintroducing substantial chunks of the original Bill with, as the proposers of the amendments would say, some improvements, presents us with some difficulties. In the normal course of events, the House as a revising Chamber takes the structure of the Bill that it receives, makes amendments, deletes and adds to that Bill. On this occasion, only one or two of the amendments tabled actually take the structure of the Bill as it is. The other amendments—the mainstream of the propositions from the gang of four—present us with a different Bill, one based on registration and tribunals. I noticed that my noble friend persisted in calling it "licensing", which is not quite the right term. If those proposals succeed to any degree in this Chamber, we shall be dealing with an entirely different Bill, and will send back a different Bill to the House of Commons. I have to say that that is not normally a recipe for a compromise between the two Houses.
	My noble friend Lord Donoughue has said that the resulting Bill would in effect be the Bill that the Government themselves proposed to the House of Commons, which we proposed after consultation, in an attempt to find some common ground. Even if that were the case, it leaves us in some difficulty, as it ignores the obvious political fact that the House of Commons has now, on a free vote, voted several times by absolutely overwhelming majorities for the principle of a ban, and has specifically rejected the registration approach. By ignoring that, Members of the Committee supporting this group and subsequent groups of amendments go against the position which they purport to propose and which they wish to describe as a compromise.
	In a sense, we are at a point in the parliamentary calendar when we are in some sort of negotiation on this and on other Bills. I am familiar with negotiation, and I must say that this is rather a peculiar one. As most Members of the Committee familiar with negotiation know, it is not usually a good move to send back to one's negotiating partners a proposal which has already been overwhelmingly rejecting—not unless one wishes to precipitate a complete breakdown of relations between the two sides. I say that as a warning.
	In any case, the proposals from the gang of four, which my noble friend purports to call the "Alun Michael Bill", are not in fact the same as the provisions in that Bill. The most important change, which applies to this group of amendments, is that they do not propose a full ban on deer hunting. That may not be evident to all Members of the Committee on reading the amendments, because it is a change by omission. So I leave with Members of the Committee the difficulty of going back to the Commons with a Bill which is not the original government Bill but in fact drops the ban on deer hunting.
	There is also the added complication that the House of Commons, in Committee, adopted a number of changes, many at the Government's instigation, some with the Government's support and some with consensus support. Most of those changes are reflected in some of the proposals from my noble friend Lord Donoughue and his colleagues, but they have taken a pick and mix approach to them, as we shall see with subsequent amendments. What is before us is a collection of amendments, some of which were in the original Bill and some of which reflect some but not all of the proposals that emerged from the Committee.
	The main way in which the package of amendments departs from the Bill as it emerged from the Committee is over the key issues of the tests of registration, which we shall debate later under Amendment No. 10. Those who tabled that amendment have changed significantly the tests of cruelty and utility—as well as making other significant changes. It is, therefore, misleading to claim that this Bill, if we adopted the proposals of my noble friend Lord Donoughue, would simply be the original Bill.
	The amendments have been referred to in the media as making some improvements to the Bill. Frankly, those so-called improvements are significant changes, all of which point in one direction. If, in a negotiating situation, it is not a good move to send back a proposition that has already been rejected, I would suggest to the Committee that it is an even more foolish move to send back to your negotiating partners an offer that is worse, in their terms, than the one that has already been rejected. What signal does that give to another place?
	As I have said, my noble friend Lady Farrington and I shall abstain until it is clear what shape the Bill will take in Committee and through the proceedings in this Chamber. However, it is important that Members of the Committee understand what they would be doing if they adopted the proposals of my noble friend Lord Donoughue. For those reasons, and given the position that we are in with another place, those who support the Commons position on the Bill that came to this Chamber and those who supported—or have come later in the day to support—the original so-called "Alun Michael Bill" ought not to accept the totality of the amendments in their present form. For that reason, I believe that it may be useful to guide the Committee on the Government's intentions. Obviously I wish to reserve my right to come back later in discussion on this group of amendments and on others, but I shall try to confine my remarks to procedural matters rather than speak too much on the substantial argument.

Lord Barnett: I have not spoken previously in this debate, but I have it in mind to support my noble friend's amendment. Is the Minister telling us that we are all wasting our time and that there is no possibility of the Government doing anything to accept anything whatever that the House may recommend?

Lord Whitty: No, I am specifically not saying that. I have said on Second Reading and subsequently that what happens hereafter depends on how this Chamber behaves. What I am saying is that if this Chamber behaves as these amendments imply that it will, it will not only send back to the House of Commons a proposition that the House of Commons has already rejected but, in terms of the majority position in the House of Commons, send back a proposal that is actually worse than the one previously recommended. That does not suggest to me a basis for compromise. There may be other bases of compromise, which the House of Commons would have to take seriously. But I have to say that it is unlikely—not impossible but unlikely—that the House of Commons would accept the totality of the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Donoughue.

Lord Donoughue: I want to respond to what the Minister said. He made a great issue of the changes made in the Bill by the amendments, which I deliberately did not go into, because the most important amendment of all has no changes. When changes are proposed, we shall deal with them as we come to them and point them out. For the guidance of the House, they constitute only a dozen or so words and, in every case, in my view, add up to an improvement in animal welfare. That has been a guiding point.
	The Minister has responded to the central point raised by my noble friend Lord Barnett on compromise, but would he help the House by telling us what kind of compromise this Chamber could make which would be acceptable?

Lord Whitty: This Chamber must decide what it is prepared to go along with. The previous position taken by this Chamber does not give a great hope for compromise on any front. However, relatively minor changes could be made to the Bill that the House of Commons would consider. In any case it must take seriously and consider whatever this Chamber sends back to it. It would consider those proposals with regard to whether there were grounds for compromise or further movement. But there are forms in which the Bill could be sent back to the House of Commons which are unlikely to deliver a compromise and others that might be more likely. The reality of the matter is that what is currently on the agenda and what Members in this Chamber have hitherto indicated that they would be prepared to support and go no further than, would not in my view be the best basis for compromise.
	As to the differences between my noble friend's propositions and the position taken by the original, I felt it necessary to intervene on this group of amendments because, although he is correct to say that the first amendment does not of itself change the Bill, taken together with the other amendments in the group it would mean the omission of the important banning of deer hunting. That is not immediately clear, and my noble friend is being a little disingenuous in that regard. That may be an issue on which your Lordships may not agree with the Commons, but it is nevertheless important to recognise that that would be a change from the original proposition that was put to the Commons.

Baroness Warnock: Can the Minister enlighten me on one point? It is the general understanding—it is mine, at any rate—that where there is a choice between banning something absolutely and not banning it absolutely, the choice is normally between banning it and permitting it only subject to certain stringent restrictions. One can think of many analogies, including the case of abortion, where the choice is between either a total ban or providing that the activity should be carried out only subject to registration or other kinds of restriction.
	So I should be grateful if the Minister could explain what other type of compromise there might possibly be between an absolute ban and something that we might propose that was not that which is contained in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. I cannot myself see what other kind of compromise there could be.

Lord Whitty: We are getting into deep water here. The basis of my intervention was to guide the Committee on where we stand in relation to what is being proposed by the Commons and what was originally proposed by the Government. It is for Members of this House to propose changes at this or later stages of the Bill's consideration. Clearly, the Bill as it has come from the Commons does not impose a complete ban; there are exemptions to that ban, as is the case in many other fields, as the noble Baroness will know.
	So there are other ways than reverting to the original Bill, but my key points are twofold. First, the original government Bill, whatever its merits, has been rejected overwhelmingly by the Commons. This group of amendments, taken together with other groups of amendments proposed by my noble friend and others, would go further backwards, in the majority view of the House of Commons, and are therefore unlikely to elicit a positive response from the House of Commons. Clearly, the House of Commons and the Government will listen to whatever this House says, but my guidance to this House, which is made genuinely, is that some avenues are more productive than others. I say no more.

Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord made great play of saying that it would be wrong or inadvisable to send something back to another place that had been overwhelmingly rejected on three occasions. That sounds very plausible. But does the noble Lord not agree that in fact we are considering a Bill, a Bill that will be subjected to the Parliament Act? The point of the Parliament Act is that if there is a disagreement between the two Houses and the Lords will not bend over backwards, the Parliament Act is used. But on this occasion, this Bill is a replica of its predecessor. Its predecessor never contained any amendments passed by your Lordships that were put to the Commons. Your Lordships held a Committee stage. One set of amendments was passed and thereafter the Government said, "We will now not continue with the Bill". Therefore, no amendments were sent from your Lordships' House to another place; another place did not consider any amendments from your Lordships; and there was no disagreement between your Lordships and another place because the Government had stopped the Bill.
	How, therefore, can it be reasonable to say that a disagreement has been shown on three occasions? It may have been shown on three totally separate occasions, but not on this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, shakes his head, but it is a fact that the Government stopped that Bill going through and prevented the House of Commons considering any amendments made by your Lordships. That is why it is wrong to introduce the Parliament Act on this Bill.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am very pleased that, so far, speeches have been, by comparison to past occasions, short and to the point and I intend to follow that practice. The word used and over-used by my noble friend Lord Donoughue—I repeat the felicitous tone of my noble friend the Minister when referring to my colleague—was compromise, compromise and compromise. I look at that which we are being invited to support and, to me, it is not a compromise; it is a continuation of past and present practice dressed up with registration, licence and legality.
	Under the arrangements that my opponents on this issue want, the fox will be chased by trained dogs and hounded to death. How is that death different from what has happened in the past? It is all very well for people here to say that hunting is a religion; it is a way of life; it is an arc of the Covenant. It may very well be and I respect that but, to me, it is a simple issue of right and wrong. You are either for the present practice or against it. I am against it.
	The middle way amendments—substantially, that is what we are discussing—were designed to continue the present practice but dressed up with legality. That is what would happen if the amendments were carried and the Bill became law. Those who support the amendments have not changed their attitudes to hunting the fox with dogs trained in the manner that they are. They have not changed their views. They are looking for a way to get round the will of the House of Commons. I support the will of the House of Commons.

Lord Waddington: There is one thing that the Minister did not make absolutely plain. That is whether the Government are bent on using the Parliament Act if the other place rejects amendments sent there from here. Various views have been expressed during the course of our debates about the circumstances in which the Parliament Act should and should not be used—the principles that should operate in making such decisions. Surely the Minister must agree that if the Parliament Act is used in this case after we have sent to the other place amendments reinstating the licensing regime that the Government originally said that they wanted and the other place then rejects those amendments, that will be entirely without precedent.
	The Minister will know that the Parliament Act's use is not actually an automatic process. It is not the case that if a Bill is rejected by this place, the Parliament Act must, as a matter of course, follow and the Bill must be presented to the Queen for Royal Assent. In fact, there is an important provision in the Parliament Act that is often ignored. That is to the effect that the Bill should go forward for Royal Assent unless the House of Commons directs to the contrary.
	I suggest that, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, where this House is apparently intending only to reinstate, to all intents and purposes, the Bill that the Government originally presented, it would be perfectly proper for the Government to table a Motion that would have the effect of the House of Commons not directing that the Bill should be presented to the Queen for the Royal Assent.
	I think that the mood of the Committee is that we should not have lengthy contributions today, but I must say that if this matter ends in the Bill in its present form being railroaded on to the statute book by the use of the Parliament Act, the prospect is bleak indeed. One of the things that particularly worries me is the inevitable souring of relations between the police and some of their natural supporters. Instead of fighting enemies of society the police in country areas will be spending their time treating as criminals upright citizens on whom up to now they have been able to rely for total support in carrying out their duties.
	It should go without saying that the criminal law should be used to deal with activities which it is overwhelmingly in the public interest to bring to a halt, not activities of which some people disapprove. It makes no sense at all for the Government to preach the virtues of tolerance and the evils of intolerance and prejudice but at the same time allow themselves to be railroaded by bigots into denying people the right to follow occupations and pastimes which have been part of life in the countryside for generations.
	On Second Reading this House was reminded that Hitler banned hunting. Indeed, we should be reminded that things like that should not happen here because we live in a democracy. In a healthy democracy the majority should not ride roughshod over the minority; rather the rights of minorities should be respected. I do not hunt; I have never hunted, but I cannot stomach this attack on personal freedom. These amendments will make the Bill less objectionable.

Lord Carlile of Berriew: As the second member of the "gang", as we have been described, to speak in this part of the debate I hope that I may try to tempt the Minister into a further and informative intervention, which I am sure would prove most helpful certainly to myself and to the other members of the gang, and probably to the whole House.
	In trying to tempt the Minister to make that intervention I remind him—I think that he was not entirely as fair as he would normally wish to be to members of the gang—of the history of attempts at compromise on this issue. The Middle Way Group and propositions connected with it have a very long history. Some Members of this House have for very many years sought a compromise both here and in another place on the issue of hunting foxes with hounds—some for much longer than the 20 years that I have been involved in one way or another in this place and in the other House. I remind the Minister that there have been many proposals, which have tended to come from one side of the argument only, to try to secure either a registration scheme or a licensing scheme or some other form of management of hunting which would be reasonably acceptable to all parts of the argument. There are more than two sides to this argument. For example, some hold different views on hare coursing than on hunting foxes with hounds.
	My attempt to tempt the Minister to say a little more to the House is partly a result of what happened this morning. I am given to understand that this morning the Minister's right honourable friend the Prime Minister made some comments on this issue. I am informed that he said he hoped there could be a compromise, or that he was looking for a compromise. One is entitled to assume that that was said by the right honourable gentleman today in the full knowledge that there would be a debate on this subject in your Lordships' House today and tomorrow at least. Are we not entitled to assume that the Minister has been informed of those comments and is able to provide at least an interpretation of what they mean?
	I invite the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to go a little further. He said that we were in deep water. He is absolutely right but the reason we are in deep water, as I see it, is that his very genuine attempt earlier to help your Lordships was the very depth charge that deepened the water. Someone behind me uttered the word "Delphic" as a description of his statement. I echo that and invite the noble Lord to give us a little more straightforward information on where we can go. He spoke of his many years of experience of negotiation. I suggest that his mention of deer hunting was plainly an attempt to take that negotiation on to the very Floor of your Lordships' House. If that is so, will the noble Lord be more explicit? Is he saying to your Lordships, "If the Bill that reaches the Commons has banned deer hunting, the Government will use every endeavour they can to prevent the Parliament Act—it is a matter for the House of Commons, of course, not for the Government—being used in relation to the Bill that emerges"?
	If I can be so subjective, I think that we are entitled to an answer to that question. I refer to the spirit in which the "gang" has been described. I am not a habitual member of gangs so I feel a little out of sorts with that description. The noble Baroness, Lady Golding, who is also a member of the gang, will confirm that although she and I have worked together on various issues in the past, we have never quite regarded ourselves as part of a gang, and we certainly do not carry bicycle chains or anything of that kind. What we carry is a willingness to trade in negotiations with the Minister, if only he will tell us what the trade is. The fundamental issue, as highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, is: what are the circumstances in which the Government will use every endeavour to stop the Parliament Act being used on this proposed legislation? Please tell us; I think that we are entitled to an answer to that question.
	With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, who I think fell into this trap, I share the view that has already been expressed that we should not make our Second Reading speeches all over again. This debate is intended to be very constructive and to deal with issues of detail not merely issues of principle. It is perhaps worth adding in that context that the amendments would introduce a strict registration system. It is worth reminding those who have not had time to read the whole of the sheaf of amendments which have been tabled, and all the previous legislation, that automatic conditions would be attributed to registration; that is to say, inalienable conditions. They are set out in Amendment No. 35 on page 13 of the Marshalled List. I suggest that they show a genuine attempt not simply to avoid a ban on hunting by any means available, as has been suggested, but to introduce an enduring, constructive and well thought out settlement of this issue so that those of us on both sides who year after year have had to deal with it can lay the matter to rest for a generation on the basis that a proper settlement has been reached.

Lord Eden of Winton: Since this is the first of more than 80 amendments which are down for consideration it would be very helpful to have further clarification from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. Given the observations that we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, there quite clearly is a difference of approach between the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the Prime Minister.
	The Prime Minister is asking for compromise. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, as I judge given what he said earlier, is inviting this House to tinker with the Bill but not to change it fundamentally in any way. He is inviting this House to return a Bill to the other place that will retain a total ban on hunting. That is what I understand to be his point and purpose and what he is saying to us in this House. He is saying that we may tinker with the Bill, make a few minor amendments and a few cosmetic changes but that we should not prevent a total ban, which was the basis of the Bill which was brought before us for consideration today.
	However, I remind the noble Lord that the Bill proposing a total ban was itself an amendment to the Government's own Bill and was brought in by the noble Lord's colleagues in the other place as an amendment to the original government Bill. What we seek to do through these amendments is to reinstate with improvements the original government Bill and let the Commons think again. That is the point and purpose of this place.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I want to make a brief point in response to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. I am sorry that he is not still in his place, but the point is worth making. At Second Reading, he read out a number of letters that he had received complaining of some of the activities of hunts. I added to them and said that I would refer the letter that I had received to the relevant hunt, for it to take action in future.
	It is not a peripheral or insubstantial matter that registration is to be the middle way forward if this and later amendments are accepted. The issues with which they deal are not unimportant. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was too dismissive in speaking to them. As my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew made clear, the registration process will be stringent and, so far as I understand it, designed to exclude henceforward activities and ways of hunting that are offensive, unnecessary and peripherally cruel. In effect, it will apply best standards to hunting, retaining none the less the central issue of the hunt—the killing of foxes in a method that is, as was made clear in the report by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, as humane, swift and certain as any method known.
	We are not dealing with some cosmetic exercise, but with a very substantial one that should satisfy a great many of our fellow citizens who do not like some current practices that would be made impossible in future.

Viscount Bledisloe: I urge the Minister to reply now to the many requests made to him to clarify the position that he stated earlier. He indicated that sending back Alun Michael's Bill totally unamended would not be an offer of compromise. He said, in what were rightly described as delphic words, that other compromises could be made. However, he has utterly declined so far to explain what he has in mind or what those could be. Unless and until we are told what sort of compromise he or his friend the Prime Minister have in mind when they use the word, one is driven almost inevitably to the conclusion that "compromise" means "unconditional surrender".

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It may assist the Committee if I indicate that my noble friend will speak towards the end of the debate and answer points made to him to which he considers that he should reply. His speech at the beginning was discussed through the usual channels who were in the Chamber at the time, and was intended to be helpful. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, was not aware at the time, but I spoke to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. All that my noble friend sought to do was assist the debate. If he needs to come back on points later, he will do so in due turn. That answers the many questions.

Baroness Byford: The noble Baroness rightly said that I was not in the Chamber at that moment and that she spoke to my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith. The truth of the matter is that we were told that the statement would be made; whether it was suitable was not discussed.
	At this stage, at which we are talking about an individual vote, I urge the Minister to clarify the situation for the whole procedure of the Bill. If he does not, we will all keep speaking, perhaps unnecessarily. Perhaps a better steer could be given. At the moment, we have no steer whatever. I shall keep my remarks to the end, out of courtesy to all Members of the Committee, but we are going round the houses at much greater length because there is no clarification. I urge the Minister to respond to the requests of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe.

Lord Hoyle: I was not going to speak at all, but I want to come to the defence of the Minister. Cruelty is cruelty and the middle way does not alter that, but I shall not go into that. I listened with rapt attention to my noble friend Lord Donoughue when he moved the amendment, as I always do. He said that he was effectively introducing the Alun Michael Bill. The Minister pointed out that the amendments did not introduce the Alun Michael Bill because deer hunting, which was banned under it, has been included. If I am wrong, I invite my noble friend to tell me so, but I understand that deer hunting is introduced in the amendment, because it is not referred to.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: I shall be very brief. It is ridiculous that this discourse should continue until we get an explanation from the Minister. He spoke about another form of compromise. We know that the Prime Minister has in his mind—he has said so—the type of compromise that is registered or licensed hunting. However, while the Prime Minister seeks that sort of compromise, the Minister says that he seeks a compromise that is not that but something else and he will not tell us what it is.
	We can all make a speech, if we want to and if we can get in to do so. In the mean time, however, it is only right that the Minister should acquit himself honourably and let the Committee know what type of compromise he means. He used the word "government", saying that the Government would not accept the amendment. The Prime Minister will accept it, but the Government will not. Where are we getting? We are certainly in a deep hole.

Lord Campbell-Savours: I would like to help my noble friend. He will know that there is an amendment on the Marshalled List that fulfils the criteria of a compromise. Amendment No. 47A provides for the defence being the protection of sheep in grazing areas in designated national parks. Can he confirm that that is the kind of compromise amendment that would be seriously considered by the House of Commons, because it does not suffer from the problems that arise in the case of this group of amendments?

Lord Renton: I wish to make a fundamental point that has not yet been made. Foxes have to be killed, because they are very destructive to lambs, poultry and game and in various ways. I speak from experience that I shall briefly mention. The least cruel way of killing foxes is to hunt them. I have hunted. Being of light weight, I was able to keep up with hounds, and I never counted more than four seconds between hounds closing in and the death of the fox. Yes, there had been a chase, but I never thought the chase itself cruel; it did not damage the fox until the hounds closed in.
	The well meaning but ignorant people from towns assume that the other ways of killing foxes are less damaging to them than hunting. What are those other ways? Poisoning is illegal, although often done. Snaring is legal and very painful. I have twice seen foxes snared—by someone else—that have not died but have struggled while still alive. Shooting foxes is difficult; foxes are very evasive. Most of those that are wounded and get away die of gangrene—a horrible death. Trapping, which is lawful but ineffective, is the other method.
	So if we are to get rid of foxes, as we must do, the easiest, simplest and least cruel way—I ask the townspeople to bear it in mind—is by hunting them.

The Earl of Erroll: As the Minister is clearly not going to intervene now, I should like quickly to make a point to reinforce the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers.
	I am not sure that the Parliament Acts can apply in this case. Section 2(3) of the Parliament Act 1911, in total, states:
	"A Bill shall be deemed to be rejected by the House of Lords if it is not passed by the House of Lords either without amendment or with such amendments only as may be agreed to by both Houses".
	The assumption is that the Bill has gone through all its stages and that amendments have gone backwards and forwards. The logical conclusion to the proposition that the subsection can be cut in two and the process stopped after the House of Lords declines to pass the legislation would be to say—I do not think that it would be the normal legal interpretation—that the Bill has only to be presented for First Reading and, if the public debate is such that the Government know that the legislation will not get through the House of Lords and Ministers will not give it time, the Parliament Act can be used in the next Session.
	Nothing in the Parliament Act suggests that a difficult Second Reading is sufficient reason to assume that the Bill will not get through the House of Lords. The subsection has to be read in its totality. It assumes that the legislation is unamended or has amendments that are acceptable to the Commons.
	Looking at the situation in its totality, I do not believe that the first part of the Parliament Act has been fulfilled. I think that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is correct on that. This is the first time that the Bill is being properly considered.
	We have two difficulties. The Speaker's certificate has been mentioned. However, the Speaker's certificate will not apply to this provision until the Bill leaves the Commons with an attached certificate for the Queen. In the interim, the Speaker's certificate deals only with changes made to the original legislation in the Commons.
	The second difficulty is a major problem. Do we have a court to which we can take this point for proper adjudication? I do not know whether this is a case for the Committee for Privileges. We do not have a proper separate Supreme Court, and nor will we under that legislation. So it is a problem.
	The amendments present two positions: a total ban and, as at present, total freedom. Registration and licensing is the only possible compromise. I cannot see a logical compromise between the two position. Therefore, I support the amendment.

Viscount Astor: It would help the Committee if the Minister would say something. Will he stand up now, as many noble Lords have requested, and make his position clear? If there is a compromise, what is the Government's proposal? How are we to understand it? It would aid our debate if we knew the Government's proposal.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: I do not think that the Minister is going to get up and enlighten the Committee. I shall therefore assume that we are still speaking to Amendment No. 1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, and the so-called gang of four.
	I shall make my position perfectly clear: I have supported the middle way for some time. I have done so because it will improve animal welfare. I should like to ask some of those who wish to ban hunting how a ban will improve animal welfare. The noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, said that cruelty is cruelty. That is all he said before sitting down. He did not go into any detail. I invite him to elaborate on that a little, perhaps when I have finished my remarks—or he can intervene on me now.

Lord Hoyle: We are not making Second Reading speeches. The noble Lord can read the speech that I made on Second Reading.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: I am delighted to say that I have done so, but I could not find anywhere in his speech anything about improving animal welfare. When pressed, however, the noble Lord said he believed that lamping was the answer. As he will know perfectly well, lamping is dangerous—as we know from a recent accident—and is possible only in certain parts of the country. So, lamping is clearly not the whole answer.
	None of those who spoke at Second Reading made a case for their method of control. They addressed only one point—fox hunting. The question is not whether we will kill foxes; it is how. We have not heard any reasons why fox hunting is any more cruel than lamping, snaring, trapping or illegal poisoning, which does happen. It is incumbent on those making the case to ban hunting to tell us why their particular method of controlling foxes—let us not mince words; killing foxes—is better than the methods put forward in Amendment No. 1.
	Noble Lords should listen to what the noble Lord, Lord Burns, said in his report. The noble Lord also took the trouble to come to the House to speak at Second Reading. He made his position clear. Other noble Lords have already quoted his speech on that occasion, so I will not quote it again. However, that was the Government's own inquiry, and he was its chairman. He came to the conclusion that there was not enough evidence to ban hunting. Why do those who wish to ban hunting not answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Burns? Where is the evidence on which we can ban hunting?
	Some keen hunters, and I am among them, have strong reservations about the registration solution. However, it would be acceptable to the broad generality. The extremes on either side may disagree with it. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, will never agree. He will never compromise at all—cruelty is cruelty. On the other side are those who say, "We can self-regulate. We do not want to be messed about with". Generally, however, I think that the compromise solution as tabled by the gang of four is the sensible one. I think that, were it given the chance, it would be followed by the country at large.

Lord Hooson: It would be helpful if the Minister would indicate, if there is any spirit of compromise on the Government Benches, what their attitude is to the hunting of foot packs in upland areas in England and Wales.
	I remind the Minister that there are tens of thousands of ewes—sheep—and their lambs on the hills of Wales and England. The greatest predators of those lambs are foxes. In the same areas, there are tens of thousands of acres of forest and hill land that afford cover for foxes. Those foxes cannot be controlled without the use of hounds. The hounds have to hunt them to get them out into an area where they can be shot. It is a very important instance of nature control in rural areas, which form a fair part of the country. If the Government are looking for a way out, the least compromise they could make is not to ban hunting there.

Lord Sewel: Perhaps I can invite my noble friend the Minister, when he says a few words, to address the issue of the appropriateness of the use of the Parliament Acts in this case. I accept that the Parliament Act provisions are available for use. What I question is whether it would be appropriate to use the Parliament Acts at this juncture.
	The Parliament Acts deal with the relationships between the two Houses of Parliament. However, let us put the 1911 and 1949 Acts in their historic and political context. What is behind that regulation of the relationship between the two Chambers? That regulation addresses situations in which the executive has support in the House of Commons for its legislative programme but is frustrated by not having support in the House of Lords. So it is a provision to enable the executive to obtain its legislation after a period of delay.
	I cannot recollect any legislation that has been subject to the Parliament Acts where it has been a matter of a free vote in both Houses. I can, however, think of examples in the 1960s. Year after year almost, the House of Commons, on a free vote, voted for the abolition of capital punishment. However, that provision could not secure a majority in this House. As I remember, there was not even a suggestion that the Parliament Act provisions should be used in that context.
	So I suggest that we are going into a new area where the Parliament Act provisions are being used for legislation that is not a matter of the executive securing its own legislation against frustration by the House of Lords. We have before us now a Bill that is subject to a free vote. In that matter, I do not believe that there is a strong case for the appropriate use of the Parliament Act.

Lord Carter: With reference to the point made by my noble friend Lord Sewell—the War Crimes Act was passed on a free vote under the Parliament Act, as was the age of consent Act.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Although I may be alone in this opinion, at this stage it would not be useful for the Minister to tell us what compromise is on the table, because I detect many shades of opinion in your Lordships' House, including among those of us who are minded to vote for registration and this first group of amendments—as I intend to. However, at a later stage there are a number of matters that I mentioned in my Second Reading speech, which I shall not repeat, that I would wish not to be included at any price. Those would include deer hunting and hare hunting. Those matters would be suitable to introduce as amendments at Report.
	So, personally, I would not yet welcome the Minister's comments about where he would like to compromise until, in our own House, we have sorted out exactly what our opinions are by way of votes on each issue.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: Reverting to the question that was just raised as to whether it would be appropriate to resort to the Parliament Acts, assuredly there are other reasons why it is not appropriate. Assuredly we are entering a new area. Those Acts were not devised to exterminate lawful minority interests and they have never been so used before. The question of civil liberties, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, is a live issue.
	Amendments Nos. 1 to 4, to which I shall speak briefly, open a gateway to the path of compromise on some form of registration. A Motion in another place to withdraw the Bill would not appear to have much prospect of success, so the only prospect to which we return regarding compromise is some form of registration that is envisaged by the amendments. One might well ask why the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister should seek that sort of compromise.
	The nation is divided and there is a turmoil of protest. The police would be put in an impossible position, which is not acceptable. One of the Prime Minister's own Back-Benchers, Kate Hoey, the honourable Member for Vauxhall, said, at Third Reading that the Bill was "unsustainable" and,
	"We have made a great mistake".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/09/04; col. 1415.]
	Another of his Back-Benchers, Jean Corston, the right honourable Member for Bristol, East, said that the question of a total ban should be settled only by due process at the next general election. The right honourable lady, who is a lifelong opponent of hunting and who chairs the Joint Committee on Human Rights, also said, on the advice of that committee, that the Bill as certified by the Speaker would be incompatible with the Convention on Human Rights—Article 1, Protocol 1. If enacted, the Bill could not be enforced unless and until it was sanctioned by our courts. Bail would have to be granted pending the ultimate decision of the Appellate Committee of this House and the European Court of Justice.
	There are three issues arising for judicial resolution, not for Parliament: first, whether three months' notice under Clause 15 is unlawful as it is inadequate, as advised by the Joint Committee; secondly, whether a total ban is in the public interest, or whether the Bill is in the general interest within the express provisions of Article 1; and, lastly, the point often made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, whether the Act of 1949 is an abuse of the Act of 1911 and, therefore, invalid.
	Surely we must accept as a matter of comity, which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has accepted, that another place will reconsider the entrenched position that it has taken up regarding a total ban. If the Parliament Acts are invoked, would it not be better if resort were taken to the courts before we were to take to the streets?

Lord Lea of Crondall: Perhaps I may briefly speak on the question of whether the registration scheme would work. It is a somewhat complicated scheme and is none the worse for that. I voted for a registration scheme when the Countryside Alliance was against it. I am still in favour of it and it could be given a chance to work, provided that the ban was written into the Bill. So another form of approach could logically be that we have been challenged in the order of eight times by various noble Lords, mainly on the Opposition Benches, to specify what type of compromise might be on offer.
	The Minister cannot possibly today suddenly produce a rabbit out of a hat, if I may use that expression. But presumably we could have a Bill which would specify that the ban would be activated in "x" years if the registration scheme proved ineffective. If people say that there are various other compromises in their heads, why do they not also think aloud regarding what they might be?

Lord Mackie of Benshie: We do not seem to be making fast progress. All the talk is of the Parliament Act. I thought we were considering the amendment tabled by the noble Lord and the "gang of four"—an excellent expression, which I do not believe that my noble friend should resent at all. Many gangs are useful, I understand.
	The Minister has also clearly indicated, as did my noble friend on the Front Bench, that the difficulty between us regarding the compromise might well be the issue of hare coursing and deer hunting. So the "gang of four" will have to make up their minds, as will the Committee, what they wish to do regarding that and what would be acceptable to the Commons. If, after we have put that to the Commons, that House rejects it, we could then begin to discuss the Parliament Act.

Baroness Mallalieu: In addition to supporting the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Donoughue, perhaps I may also speak to Amendments Nos. 2 and 53 which are grouped with it, the second of which is in my name.
	The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, has already mentioned the matter that we are actually addressing in this group. Essentially, it is the principle of registration—whether it should be possible for hunting to continue, subject to the control of having to satisfy the registrar under the tests that were devised by Mr Alun Michael, when he produced his original Bill. Although there have been a number of variants and diversions during this debate, perhaps we may return to that matter.
	First, I shall speak to Amendment No. 2, which is set out in precisely the same terms as the Government Bill introduced into the House of Commons in December 2002. That amendment provides that hunting by an individual can be registered in three ways. First, the individual can seek individual registration, which would allow him to hunt by himself or with a limited number of people who are not registered. In that case, he would have to apply to the registrar, submitting the species of wild mammal that he intended to hunt and the area in which the hunting would take place.
	Secondly, individual registration is not necessary if an individual participates in hunting with a group of which at least one individual is registered under a group registration in respect of the species of wild mammal that is intended to be hunted and the place in which the hunting takes place. If that is the case, a record must be kept of the identity of each individual who participates in the hunt, regardless of whether they are registered or not. That record has to be kept for the duration of the registration. Thirdly, an individual may be considered as registered if he participates in hunting with a number of individuals one of whom must be subject to individual registration.
	However, in every case, as has already been said, an applicant for an individual registration must agree to abide by the following conditions: any wild mammal which is injured or captured must be killed quickly and humanely; and any wild mammal which is shot in accordance with that must be shot by a competent person; and permission must have been received from the occupier of the land or, in the case of unoccupied land, from the person to whom it belongs. Any inspector who is appointed by a prescribed animal welfare body must be permitted at the request of the registrar to accompany the registered individual while hunting for the purpose of inspection. Insurance has to be in place in respect of loss or damage caused to people other than the registered individual. Finally, not more than two other unregistered individuals may participate in reliance on the registration of an individual.
	Failure to abide by those automatic conditions would result in deregistration. Group registration has precisely the same conditions. Records must be kept of the identity of each individual who participates and reasonable steps must be taken to ensure that no individual who has been refused registration participates.
	I suggest that those provisions, which are automatic conditions before any hunting can take place, will ensure that hunting is accountable and is carried out to the highest possible animal welfare standards. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 2.
	I can be briefer about Amendment No. 53, because that relates simply to money, and it has precisely the same wording as the government Bill that was introduced in the Commons in December 2002. It states:
	"(1) Any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown in connection with this Act shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament.
	(2) Money received by the registrar by way of fees shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund".
	The amendment provides simply that the necessary moneys are made available to pay for the registration system and for the tribunal.
	Perhaps I may briefly speak in support of the main amendment in the group, Amendment No. 1. Notwithstanding the somewhat Delphic statements of the Minister following the opening remarks of my noble friend Lord Donoughue, I hope that we can produce a compromise which is acceptable to the other place, because, frankly, this nonsense has gone on for long enough. I do not like Alun Michael's Bill; I did not like it when it first appeared. It would not have been my chosen method for reaching a compromise. I would have preferred to see reform of the Protection of Animals Act along the lines that were proposed in the Bill that was introduced by my noble friend Lord Donoughue, and I would have liked to have seen that combined with a licensing scheme as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, at Second Reading. That would have been simpler, clearer and less bureaucratic. However, I recognise that the essence of compromise is that no one gets exactly what he would like.
	I recognise also that the architecture of Alun Michael's original government Bill, with its twin tests of utility and least suffering, was a reasonable approach to a licensing system. The same principles should apply across the board to all forms of hunting. An independent registrar should make a decision based on the evidence which is placed before him. Some applications would succeed and some would fail, but the process would be seen to be fair and, as such, would "stand the test of time", to quote the words that have been much used by the Minister.
	At Second Reading, my noble friend Lady Gale and others—indeed, my noble friend Lord Hoyle said much the same today—said that hunting should be banned because it was cruel. I say that it is not, but neither of us is impartial. Both of us perhaps have our judgment clouded—in the one case, by a personal dislike; in the other, by a personal passion in favour. However, an independent registrar, looking at the evidence presented to him, applying the twin tests to it and determining the application on that basis, should command the respect of both sides. We may not like the outcome, but we will feel that there has been a fair hearing. If the hunting community is prepared for its case to be dealt with in this way, as I believe it is, I hope that, in due course, so will its opponents.
	If we cannot reach a compromise, I fear that we will be well on the way to putting on the statute book a Bill which will be divisive, increase animal suffering and cause some real hardship to people in some areas. I hope that the process will succeed, and I hope that we will produce something that will stand the test of time. I hope very much that, when he comes to reply, the Minister, my noble friend Lord Whitty, will produce something more helpful than in his earlier interventions.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: The noble Baroness will, like me, have heard the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, say that neither he nor the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, intended to vote on the amendment. Does not the government abstention on the issue of registration suggest that at least a system of registration is within the parameters of a compromise which might be accepted by the Government?

Baroness Mallalieu: I very much hope that that is the case. I see the Minister's difficulty in voting against the provisions which were the work of his colleague, Alun Michael, in another place. I hope that the line he has taken indicates that we may have a more favourable reception.

Lord Richard: I have taken no part in any of the discussions on this or the previous hunting Bills. Hunting is not an issue that stirs my heart one way or the other. If people want to put on red coats and chase animals across a field, I am reasonably tolerant about that. I have heard the evidence, but I am not convinced that it is necessarily a cruel way of doing what we must do; that is, to control foxes. I have therefore previously abstained.
	I have listened carefully to everything that has been said today and understand the great difficulty that the House is in. My noble friend talks about negotiations. So be it, but the trouble is that there are three parties to the negotiations; this House, the other place and the Government. It is important that before going into those negotiations this House should clearly express its view in principle of a registration scheme for the hunting of foxes by dogs.
	Once the House has agreed the basic principle, the negotiations can legitimately start on the many details of the scheme; for instance, what should be contained in it and whether deer should be covered by it. One could negotiate about the form of the scheme, whether that proposed in the Bill is sensible or whether there should be another. However, we should first take a decision on whether in principle we are in favour of a registration scheme in respect of the hunting of foxes by dogs.
	It is a simple question and we should take a simple decision on it. In a sense, it would mean degrouping the amendments and taking a vote on the first amendment. Thereafter, no doubt, discussions—sensible ones, one hopes—could take place between at least two of the parties to these tripartite negotiations; namely, the Government on the one hand and those who are passionately in favour of hunting on the other.

Lord Tebbit: I think that there is something in what the noble Lord has just said. It also reflects upon what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who is not now in his place, said about the use of the Parliament Act. Although the War Crimes Bill—one of the Bills that he quoted—was the subject of a free vote, it was clearly the government's Bill. The executive wanted it and therefore it was probably not inappropriate that the Parliament Act should have been used.
	We are now in a difficult situation because, as has been said, there are three parties to these negotiations. From what we have heard, we know that the Government would be very willing to find a compromise. We know that because, of course, the compromise which might arise would be a Bill very close to one that the Government themselves introduced.
	The awkward squad in all this is the majority in the other place, which does not appear to be fully under the control of the Government. So it would be very strange—but we live in a strange world these days—were this House to oblige the Government by giving them a second chance to get their own legislation passed. In the event that the Government were able to persuade the majority in the Commons that that would be the right course, we could then forget the Parliament Act or anything of that kind and, with a little shuffling backwards and forwards, I am sure we would be able to find a compromise that would work.
	So the question is: how will the Government deal with this legislation if we amend it so that it becomes the Bill that they really want? If I were the business manager in the other place or the Prime Minister, I would know that I had one weapon with which I could persuade the majority in the Commons to come into line—parliamentary time. If the Prime Minister were to let his majority know that, in the event that they did not compromise and accept what was basically the Government's Bill—the registration Bill—he would not allow time and the Bill would fall, then surely we could expect a compromise to be reached.
	Therefore, it seems to me that, whatever else we do or do not do, we should at least provide the opportunity to find out whether, ultimately, the Government have the courage to stand by the Bill that they wanted or whether they will be pushed over by their own supporters in that place as opposed to, on this occasion, their supporters on both sides of this House.
	I admit that it is a little odd for this place to support the executive against the majority in the other place, but I think that we should at least give it a fair chance. We should see whether the noises that have been coming from those informed sources and spin masters—that is, that the Government, and particularly the Prime Minister, would like to avoid a confrontation between the Government and the rural interest in this country—are true. The fact that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is not going to vote either way on this matter suggests that there is a feeling of compromise in the air, and we should give it a go.

Lord Mancroft: As the fifth member of the "gang of four", perhaps I may add my voice to those who have already spoken in support of these amendments, to which my name is attached. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, explained quite adequately to the Committee at the outset of this debate why the Bill before us today—we have discussed it before and do not need to do so again—is unworkable and unenforceable and why it is based on prejudice and bigotry.
	We have already been through that, but an important point was the contribution to the debate made by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, at Second Reading. Towards the end of his speech, he made a very important point, which has not been focused on as much as it might be. It was in the context of the phrase "good and robust law", which is what the Government were seeking in resolving this very difficult issue.
	The noble Lord, Lord Burns, told us that using the Parliament Act or a similar device to settle this issue in a way which those most involved—the rural community—would regard as unfair and unjust would, in fact, not settle the matter; it would mean that it would fester on in the countryside for years and years until a future government came back and resolved it properly. Regardless of any noble Lord's views on this issue, that is another incentive and another reason to find a more equitable way to settle the issue.
	Whatever the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, and others think or, indeed, whatever I may think, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, who has considered this matter independently, believes that cruelty is not proven and that there is no evidence of cruelty to justify a ban or such a draconian step. That, in itself, is another reason that we should seek a better way forward.
	The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, and the rest of the gang of four are proposing an alternative. The alternative, the principle of which is enshrined in this first amendment and which we shall go on to discuss in detail as the amendments proceed, is, as your Lordships are aware, entirely consistent with the Government's original proposal. That proposal was based on the evidence and the principle that the Government promised to everyone, including the rural community. It is what we now know that the Government apparently want and, in particular, it is what the Prime Minister appears to want.
	In his opening remarks, which, while they may have been Delphic, I found extremely helpful, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, made it clear that changes have been proposed to the Bill through amendments which we have tabled and which we are to discuss this evening and tomorrow. That is right. When we attempted, via amendments, to move from the present Bill back to the original government proposal, we were, if I may put it this way, shooting at a moving target because the Bill changed during its progress from First Reading to Second Reading and through the Committee stage in the House of Commons. We tabled those amendments not as a deliberate attempt to deceive your Lordships or to hide issues but in an effort to find the most equitable and reasonable way to proceed, bearing in mind that, as your Lordships will know, if something is changed early in the proceedings on a Bill, it frequently affects the Bill further along the line. This was, and is, a long and complex Bill but it is in a form to which we hope your Lordships will agree.
	I believe there are very few matters of principle in the changes that we have made, but we would welcome comments from either the Government Front Bench or elsewhere if it is felt that we have it wrong. There are two major changes to the Bill introduced by Mr Alun Michael, and we shall reach them in due course. They are not, I think, matters to be dealt with at present. At the moment, we need consider only the principle of registration.
	Of the two changes that we are proposing, one is to do with coursing and stag hunting and the other is the second test of registration—the test of utility. We shall discuss those as and when we reach them. The Minister suggested that we had changed in some way the test of least suffering. I think that, on reflection, he will find that we have not or, if we have changed it, that we have done so inadvertently, but I believe that it remains the original test of least suffering. However, again, we shall come to that in due course.
	What we have produced here is a compromise. There is no doubt about that. We have compromised considerably in going down this route, and that was our intention. We would like to find a compromise solution. We have made considerable concessions. I shall not go through them in detail now, but as we go through the later amendments, which take us stage by stage through the registration process, the concessions that we have made, and are prepared to put on the table in a gesture of goodwill to solve this very difficult issue, will become clear. On the other hand, I point out—without, I hope, any inflection in my voice—that I have yet to detect one single concession that has come from the other side. It takes two to tango.
	I hope that we have produced what the Government wanted: a registration Bill—their registration Bill. We have produced exactly what was recommended by the Government's independent report under the noble Lord, Lord Burns; and we have produced exactly what the Prime Minister appeared to be talking about at lunch time this very day. Therefore, we hope that your Lordships will look on it favourably and work with us as we go through this somewhat complicated process over the next day or two to try to produce the compromise that we hope the Government will accept.
	My last point is that in listening to the Minister speaking from the Front Bench—I do not make this comment in a judgmental way—from time to time I found it difficult to work out his position. My understanding was that Ministers on the Front Bench represent the government of the day, not the House of Commons. The House of Commons must represent itself. So, when the Minister speaks at the end of the debate, it would be immensely helpful if he could explain not the position of the House of Commons—we all know that—but the position of the Government. That is the key to the issue. We are giving back to the Government the Government's Bill; we are supporting the Government and we hope to find a compromise. I hope that at this late hour the Government, for once, will support the same compromise.

Lord King of Bridgwater: The Minister made the comment that we are in deep water. Anyone who is familiar with rural areas, and many people not familiar with rural areas but who have different views from many others about hunting, know that there are very strong feelings on this issue. It is very important that we recognise that and that we deal with this matter in the proper way. Many people in the countryside know that the way in which this matter has been handled has added to the anger of so many and it has been the worst possible prelude to any action that the Government may wish to allow to happen in relation to hunting.
	Looking back over the matter, the original attempt was made by Jack Straw as Home Secretary, who asked the noble Lord, Lord Burns, to undertake his inquiry. Then the Government requested Mr Alun Michael to hold the hearings in Portcullis House. There followed attempts to deal with the issue on principle and evidence and, although they were greeted with some scepticism by hunting people, they were seen as genuine attempts to see whether there was a fair basis on which this longstanding disagreement could be approached. Many noble Lords have experienced debates on this subject for years.
	Of course, the approach has been pretty chaotic. My noble friend Lord Ferrers referred to the handling of the first Bill and the way in which the Government simply pulled stumps and abandoned progress on it. Now we have this Bill which has appeared at the last gasp of this Session of Parliament, having been lying around for a considerable period of time in the Commons, not being dealt with in any way. That has not given us any confidence.
	The point made now by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, is whether this House is simply wasting its time, whether the Government are prepared to take any action or whether they will simply allow the will of their Back-Benchers to prevail, notwithstanding that they have admitted that this is quite the wrong way to approach the matter. They have warned of the dangers of what is proposed.
	I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. I do not agree with the idea of the registrar; I do not believe it is the best way to approach the matter. I would much rather see self-regulation. Recently we had an example of self-regulation. Two very stupid people at the Labour Party conference produced two carcasses which they laid out on the street. The action may have been handled in the courts, but I noticed that the Masters of Foxhounds Association took immediate action and banned that hunt from hunting for a period of time. So the whole hunt was punished for the stupid action of two people. However, if we have a system of registration, people will not act with such speed. There will be a tribunal and all kinds of opportunities for people to argue their cases. That is an illustration of self-regulation.
	There is no point in arguing such a point because we have gone beyond it. In the spirit of compromise that has been advanced here, the idea of registration is set out. I believe that it is the least worst alternative to self-regulation and that it is the way to proceed.
	The Minister was absolutely right that one or two changes are proposed beyond the Alun Michael Bill, but they are not in this amendment. The amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, has made clear, deals with the Alun Michael proposal for a registrar for registration.
	I may disagree with a number of noble Lords on the issue of stag hunting. Having represented a constituency in which one of the principal stag hunts in the country is based, I do not agree with people who believe that it should be banned. I accept that I have to argue that at the right time in this Committee stage.
	The principle of registration, as in the Alun Michael Bill, is quite clear. I believe that it is now the duty of this House to save both the Government and the country from what could otherwise be a most unfortunate situation. I may be wrong, but I believe that successive Home Secretaries have never voted for this Bill and have never supported a ban. I have been a Back-Bencher and a Minister, and the benefit of being a Back-Bencher is that one does not have to take responsibility. Ministers and the Government will have to pick up the mess if this goes through in the way in which government Ministers have already stated is unworkable and is likely to lead to serious tension in our country.
	I believe that it is the duty of this House to act, not because we are frightened of the Commons—many of us have been in the Commons and have seen it make mistakes on many occasions—but because we have to do what we believe to be right. We must stand by our honour, integrity, experience and knowledge and do what we think is right. In the present circumstance I am sure that the compromise of registration is right.

The Lord Bishop of Peterborough: From these Benches I add my support for this group of amendments. I do so very much in the spirit of compromise to which the noble Lord, Lord King, has just referred. It seems to me that this is a compromise between those who want a total ban and those who want the present situation to continue without any regulation.
	I support these amendments on the basis of a principle that my noble friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, who is in his place beside me, indicated at Second Reading. He said that one of the marks of a civilised society is the ability to live with difference and that,
	"One should not impose something on people against their consent unless there is an overriding reason for it".
	That is a principle that this House scrupulously sought to implement yesterday in a very different context. The right reverend Prelate also said at Second Reading that there are other matters which many feel are undesirable and socially corrupting,
	"but we have found ways of managing them without banning everything in sight".—[Official Report, 12/10/04; cols. 135-136.]
	It seems to me that this amendment does precisely that; it seeks to manage without banning in a situation where there is deep division in our country and where many people in the countryside, as other noble Lords have said, feel that there has been a failure to listen and to understand their way of life.
	I very much hope that your Lordships' Committee will support these amendments and that we shall have the opportunity to discuss further the nature of registration and how it should, in practice, be implemented.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I spoke on this issue in Second Reading debates in the other place in 1995 and 1997. I have never spoken on it in a Second Reading debate in your Lordships' House. If some Members of the Committee think that some aspects of my speech might be a Second Reading speech, it is necessarily not one which I have already delivered in this place.
	In the other place I was an inner city MP. I had a sense of responsibility in that capacity—on the Burkean principle that a Member of Parliament owes his judgment to his constituents—to learn more about the fox than as an inner city MP I was likely to do. In those days the Earl of Cranbrook was the chairman of English Nature. I happened independently to know him. I asked him whether English Nature would provide me with as comprehensive a bibliography on the fox as it could. It produced a list of about a dozen books and an enormous list of articles. With the assistance of the House of Commons Library I secured those and read them. The animal welfare conclusion to which I came as a result of doing that reading derived from arguments such as those expressed in this debate by my noble friend Lord Renton. It was that hunting was the optimal way to proceed. That view has been sustained by the Burns committee, which was set up by the Government to assist Parliament in these matters.
	My friend Tony Banks—and I can say genuinely "my friend Tony Banks" for he and I regularly meet to explain to American students how Parliament works; and I know him well—has said that we are now into politics and that we have moved on from animal welfare. If so, I regret that. But I have the feeling from the Minister's speech earlier in the debate that that is his view too and that we are no longer into animal welfare.
	The Minister quoted two-thirds of a famous quotation by Mr Sherlock Holmes where he said, "These are deep waters, Watson". I am a bear of very little brain and I am therefore perfectly happy to play the role of Dr Watson in listening to what the Minister has to say.
	The Prime Minister is said to be interested in compromise. I am not quite sure, in the light of what has happened so far, how he would deliver it in the other place. But that is by the by. He may still regret in due course what he said about my right honourable friend John Major when he was Prime Minister. On one occasion in the other place he said that,
	"the difference between the Prime Minister and myself"—
	that is Mr Blair speaking—
	"is that I lead my party and he follows his".
	That issue may return to haunt him in the days ahead.
	Of course the Prime Minister may say that this is a free vote. That is quite different from an issue of party policy under a Whip. But some of us were surprised by the opaqueness of his original pledge in the manifesto in 1997 that the Labour Party, if elected, would allow a free vote in the House of Commons. That was a meaningless commitment, considering that in the House of Commons a free vote had always been allowed on fox hunting. It added absolutely nothing to the status quo of where we then were.
	The noble Lord, Lord Graham, said that he could not accept the middle way, although the Prime Minister is attached to that form of triangulation. I have heard what has been said about registration improving animal welfare; and I am prepared to accept that. For myself, I am clear that, whatever the Minister in due course says, the issue of animal welfare will determine my own vote when we go into the Lobbies and that animal welfare should remain our guiding star. I share the view of my noble friend Lord King that we should do what we believe in.

Earl Peel: I originally voted against the proposal that is before us today that has become known as the middle way. I think and I admit that that was a tactical error. I remember very well my noble friend—I think that he is still my noble friend—Lord Willoughby de Broke trying to persuade me and others to do the same but we rejected it. However, there is such a thing as political expediency. We all have to move; we all have to think; and we all have to make judgments. I believe without any question of doubt that the judgment now before us means that we have no option whatever but to accept the proposal in the form of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue.
	I accept the strong feelings expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Hoyle and Lord Graham, but there is no question of doubt that foxes need to be controlled. It is therefore a question of clinically looking at the science available and asking what is the most humane way to deal with it. Clearly, hunting is the least cruel.
	I would simply make an intervention at this stage. I have not done so to date, but there have been in my view a number of misrepresentations made during the course of the hunting debate about other methods of fox control. I fully acknowledge that hunting is a least cruel method, but Members of the Committee should be under no misapprehension that snaring and shooting if done correctly are humane ways of controlling foxes. I would not want anyone to be under the misapprehension that all shooting and all snaring leads to an untimely death for the fox because that simply is not the case.
	It seems to me that on this issue there are two fundamental points. One is that of least cruelty and the other is the one of civil liberty and respect for the minority. That to me is perhaps the burning issue; the one on which we should concentrate more than anything else. Seldom, if ever, in the legislative history of Parliament can so much evidence have been accumulated against a piece of legislation as that which we have in front of us today. That I believe is the key issue. Many noble Lords have referred to Alun Michael and how he himself supported, quite naturally, his original Bill and how he wishes to have something similar returned to the House of Commons.
	We had the evidence from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and we had the Portcullis House hearings. It all points in one direction. We have the opinion polls which show quite clearly that the majority of people are now uncertain about the hunting issue; and I do not believe that many of them think that hunting should be outlawed. Then we have the press and these hugely important libertarian arguments that have been put forward time and time again. I said at Second Reading and I say again that if the Government ignore that, they do so at their peril. It is one of the most fundamental and damaging things they could do towards the well-being of the countryside and the well-being of people who live in a democracy and expect fair play.
	I believe that this amendment offers that alternative. It offers fair play and I genuinely and sincerely hope that your Lordships will support it.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: I made my maiden speech in your Lordships' House at the Second Reading of the Hunting Bill. I asked for the House to try to find a way forward that would answer the genuine questions of those who oppose hunting and would find a proper solution to all who value freedom and tolerance. This amendment answers exactly those questions.
	I agree with my noble friend Lord King. In an ideal world I would prefer self-regulation as that fits with my philosophical view of life. But if we need a registrar in order to ensure that whole swathes of our fellow men and women are not criminalised, I feel that this is the way forward and I urge your Lordships to support the amendment.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: If there are no further speakers in the debate I should like to start to conclude it. The interesting amendment on registration is pivotal to the whole of the Bill. The issue has to be resolved shortly in a vote, but on listening to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, I thought that there was a hint of a nod and a wink on occasions in what he said. Indeed, he admitted that the four noble Lords whose names are attached to most of the amendments are trying to be helpful. But then he said that it differed radically from the original Bill.
	During this debate important points have been made about what the Government's view is on this Bill—after all, it is as near as possible to their original Bill that came here from the House of Commons. Noble Lords asked whether the Government are still prepared to support the principle of registration of hunting or whether they will look at the House of Commons and back away from its decision to ban hunting. That is contained in the Bill that we are now debating.
	The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, asked the Minister to come clean and tell us whether he is highlighting hare coursing and deer hunting, and whether that is the compromise sought. I hope that the noble Lord will express his views on that. The debate on the Parliament Act is important but we must stick to the amendments before us. The purpose of Amendment No. 1 is to secure a registration scheme for hunting in the United Kingdom.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, spoke to Amendment No. 2, which lays out specific ways in which individuals and groups can hunt and become licensed to do so. Groups of individuals can also seek a licence. The conditions were read out, so I shall not repeat them. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, rightly mentioned that one cannot negotiate without ground rules and that in some respects we are debating in a vacuum. He said that the principle of registration must be accepted or rejected. We will do that, I am sure, in the forthcoming vote.
	The noble Lord, Lord Burns, who has been referred to, expressed his opinions on cruelty. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, sought a more equitable solution to the issue, which was hinted at by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, himself. The noble Lord, Lord King, rightly responded to the situation in the countryside, which is in turmoil over the issue. We need to be responsible in resolving it.
	I shall now address specifically Amendment No. 1. It is the constructive alternative to a ban. The fact that the Government produced a registration Bill at the conclusion of a two-year consultation process was a very objective conclusion. It creates a degree of ethical control of hunting by regulation. The registration and licensing of hunts ensure that standards must be adhered to; that will be very, very acceptable in the countryside. As a fisherman, I get a fishing licence every spring and adhere to the rules clearly stated on my licence. Others shoot, for which they obtain shooting licences. I see nothing wrong in getting licences to hunt under certain conditions. It is a principle already accepted in the countryside.
	The registration body will be equally independent of pro- and anti-hunting interests. The registrar must be objective and independent in determining who is fit to hunt; if hunts disobey rules, there must be rulings that will be enforced; and licences must be withdrawn if rules are breached. That provides for an appeals mechanism, which is contained in this set of amendments.
	This is the way forward for the countryside, and the way to get much more cohesion between town and country. I beg those not only in this place but in another place who believe in a ban to think again and find a civilised solution that most people can accept.

Baroness Byford: I rise very briefly because nearly everything appropriate has already been said, so I shall not cover the ground again. I wish to draw noble Lords' attention to some specific points.
	I find it very strange that, having made his statement at the start of the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, refused to enlarge on it. The question must be: why? If we are told that the Government seek a compromise, we are at least due an explanation of how we could compromise. If the only compromise that the Government seek is to accept the Bill as a ban Bill, I see no compromise at all. I hope that the Minister will address those very specific issues that Members of the Committee raised today.
	First, the last time the Bill was before us, the House of Lords did not block it; we all agreed that at Second Reading, however much noble Lords opposite tried to say that that was not true. Secondly, it was clearly the House of Commons that altered its own Bill—it was the Alun Michael Bill, a government Bill, which Back-Benchers hijacked at the last minute. Following that, the Government decided to leave the Bill for 10 months before they brought it back to your Lordships' House. Indeed, they introduced it into the House of Commons first, in September, leaving us very little time to go through it in the normal way. Thirdly, the House of Commons never debated the amendments or the work that we had done on its previous Bill. The Commons had guillotined the Bill before us today into such a short space of time that it did not have the chance to debate it. So it is not this House that altered the Bill at that stage; the Commons altered its own Bill.
	Amendment No. 1 concerns the principle of registration. Although I noted the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, Members of the Committee should bear in mind that at the moment we are not debating the question of whether to look at different aspects, including stag hunting and hare coursing; we are debating whether to approve the principle of registration. As one of my noble friends has stated, the Government are setting down some very high standards for registration, and some hunts currently might not qualify. Noble Lords should not let that point go amiss. Most importantly, we must end up with a robust law, in whatever form. Registration should apply to all forms of hunting, not just specific ones.
	If the Minister seeks a compromise, as he said earlier, does it include the Alun Michael Bill? If it does not, what does it include and what are we talking about? Perhaps there is no compromise. I was very disappointed that, on the many occasions when the Minister was invited to comment, he declined to do so. I wish to put that on the record because I suspect that, if things do not turn out the way the Government hope, this House will be blamed. That would be very unfair because many noble Lords have asked the Government to clarify what their compromise would be, but clarification has not been forthcoming.
	We are where we are. I agree with other noble Lords who have said that it is for this House to decide. My own position is well known, but it is for each individual noble Lord to look at the amendment and consider it as it is presented at the moment. I hope that we will not look further down the line at other amendments to come. We are where we are at the moment, and this is the amendment before us, which I beg to support.

Lord Grantchester: Perhaps I may say why I have difficulty listening to this debate on compromise. I applaud my noble friend Lord Donoughue for seeking compromise, but I have difficulty in seeing it as such because the amendment seeks registration for hunting of all species and does not distinguish between the different species of animals hunted. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said that that could be addressed later. My difficulty is that, in addressing the matter later, it may be decided that stag hunting is in exactly the same category as fox hunting, which I cannot accept. At this point, therefore, it is very difficult for me to support the registration option.

Lord Whitty: I am sorry that the noble Baroness and others feel that my intervention earlier was not helpful and that my refraining from intervening subsequently was equally unhelpful. It was not intended that way: it was intended, as is often the case in this House, to give some guidance on how the Government should behave on this Bill before Members of the Committee made comments on what was bound to be a contentious and, in some sense, a principled amendment.
	For that reason, I have also referred to the various options that have been discussed and the implications for the totality of the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Donoughue and the gang of four, five or however many it is. In many respects, it is a crucial vote because it will begin to define the structure that the Committee intends to put back to the Commons.
	I have been asked some extraneous questions that I will not answer. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and my noble friend Lord Sewel, all asked about the Parliament Act. We are not at the Parliament Act yet; it is there to resolve a deadlock between the Houses. It is available to use on this Bill, but we are not yet at deadlock.
	My attempted guidance to the Committee was to give my judgment on how it might best avoid that deadlock. By and large, most speakers have not accepted that advice. It may well be that the vote does not accept that advice either, both on this and subsequent amendments. But on a subject that has historically always been a free vote—we are not in new territory here in that sense—it is the main job of the Government's spokesperson to give guidance to the Committee and to the House.

Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord refers to the issue of the Parliament Act as an extraneous argument. Of course, it was he, in his speech, who referred to the fact that the House of Commons had voted overwhelmingly three times for the banning. That, according to the noble Lord, was a reason why we should continue to ban it.
	My point was that at no point has the House of Lords had full Committee, Report or Third Reading stages. The House of Commons never had the ability to consider our views. Therefore, that was a reason for not having the Parliament Act. The only reason I mentioned that was that the noble Lord referred to it in the first place.

The Earl of Erroll: Perhaps I may intervene with an important point. The point made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and me is that we do not think that the Parliament Act applies. It is being abused. The Minister should understand the danger: if one starts to accept that a procedure where there was a hostile Second Reading in the House of Lords is capable of triggering the Parliament Act—that is not in the 1911 Act at all and is not one of the conditions under which rejection by the House of Lords is counted—when the Minister's party is not in power, that procedure may be used by another party in power.
	A very dangerous precedent is being set because it has never been used as a triggering of the Parliament Act in the past. We will move into new waters in which a government of the day who control the House of Commons will be able to force through legislation, after getting it only as far as Second Reading in the House of Lords. On that interpretation, it may be possible to reduce that to a First Reading in the House of Lords. I do not think that the Minister realises how dangerous the avenue that they are going down is. It is not clear.

Lord Whitty: We can have as many examinations of history as we like. As the noble Baroness just said, "We are where we are". I dispute the interpretation of the timing on the previous occasion, which I have already put on record. It is not sensible to reopen that argument today.
	In so far as it has implications for the Parliament Act, I repeat that we are not at the stage where the Parliament Act has to be triggered or not triggered. It is there to avoid deadlock. In any case, it becomes a matter not for me, not for the Government, but for the House of Commons and for the Speaker if there is deadlock at the end of this process. We are not yet there.

Lord Waddington: From what the Minister has said, can we take it that if there is deadlock, in his terms, the Government will use the Parliament Act? Is that what he is saying?

Lord Whitty: No: I am saying two things. First, the Parliament Act is available, which I accept that some Members of the Committee dispute. Secondly, the Parliament Act at that point is not a matter for the Government, it is a matter for the House of Commons. I am therefore not in a position to say—nor are the Government or anyone from the Government—whether the Parliament Act would then be triggered. We would certainly consider it in those circumstances because we have to fulfil the manifesto commitment made in the last few manifestos to ensure that there is some resolution of the issue, but it is not a decision for today. It is a decision that I have been trying to advise the Committee on how best to avoid. Regrettably, the Committee has hitherto not taken my advice.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: This is getting us nowhere. We have been threatened with resort to the Parliament Acts. What is the intention of the Government? The noble Lord speaks for the Government.

Lord Whitty: Yes, but, as has been rather underlined in some of the debate, the Government do not always speak for the House of Commons. Ultimately, it will be a matter for the House of Commons whether the Parliament Act is there or not. All that I am saying today is that the Parliament Act is available on this kind of legislation. If we are in deadlock, there will need to be consideration of using the Parliament Act at that point. We are where we are, and we are not at that point yet.

Lord Tebbit: Does the noble Lord not accept that if the Government wish to avoid using the Parliament Act, all they have to do when the Bill goes back to the other place is refrain from giving parliamentary time to the Third Reading of the Bill? Then there will be no Bill on which to use the Parliament Act. It is entirely in the hands of the Government. It is not within the unilateral control of the House of Commons whether or not the Act could be used.

Lord Whitty: Even when the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, was Leader of the House of Commons, there were occasions when he recognised political reality. That would be one of these situations, I fear.

Lord Tebbit: The noble Lord is historically wrong: I was never Leader of the House of Commons, but I gave very good advice to the Prime Minister at times.

Lord Whitty: We could debate that for some time. I apologise for awarding him the wrong office.
	The issue has been around for the whole of the period of this Government. It is time that it was resolved; therefore, the potential use of the Parliament Act comes into discourse. If people feel threatened by that, that is the reality. We have all been threatened in this. We have been threatened with civil disobedience; we have been threatened by all sorts of things. But the fact is that parliamentary procedures exist for resolving the issue if the two Houses remain in conflict.
	The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, asked me if my abstention on these matters indicated a position that the Government were likely to take. I tried to explain that. In fact, I took the same position when we were last in Committee—the aborted Committee or the Committee that failed to complete its business. I felt that it was right that I should primarily use my position as Government spokesman to guide the House rather than allow my personal opinion on a free vote, which is of course applicable to Ministers as well, to cloud the issue. That is all that I am doing during this Committee stage. There may come a point when I will use my vote, but I shall not use it in Committee. No one can draw any conclusions one way or another from that as to the eventual position of the House of Commons, let alone the Government.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I was really trying to clarify whether the Minister's abstention on the vote indicated that registration, which is the subject of the amendments, was within the parameters of a possible compromise.

Lord Whitty: I shall come on to the point about negotiation. A compromise is not a matter for me or, indeed, ultimately a matter for the Government. A compromise and a free vote is a matter for negotiation between the majority of this House and the majority in the House of Commons. In so far as that remains the case, there are difficulties about a system of registration. If the House of Commons maintains its position, it will not accept that which looks likely to be the position of this House.
	That is not an absolute "no" to the noble Lord's question, but it is not a "yes" either. I am taking a position that I hope will be of guidance to the Committee rather than misleading.

The Earl of Onslow: Perhaps the Minister—

Noble Lords: Oh!

The Earl of Onslow: I love people moaning when they have to listen to questions they do not agree with. Is it not quite extraordinary that the Minister does not say yes, does not say no, and does not know what he is talking about when his name is on the Bill? This is his Bill and no one else's. Surely he must have an opinion of it, or is that asking too much?

Lord Whitty: The noble Earl knows very well my opinion, as he knows my opinion about his interventions on the Bill. Everyone has an opinion and everyone is entitled to a free vote. What I am attempting to help the Committee through is the procedural position here and what the likely procedural position will be if noble Lords take one or other stance. If noble Lords do not want my advice, that is fine. If they wish to ignore my advice, that too is fine. Everyone has a free vote. However, I am giving my advice anyway.
	We are in a negotiating situation, and it is with deep regret and some trepidation that, for the first time ever—certainly in public and probably also in private—I have to disagree with my noble friend Lord Richard. This is not a three-way negotiation. On a free vote it is a negotiation between the majority in this House and the majority in the House of Commons. I do not say that the Government have no influence on that, but that is the negotiating position. If anything, the Government have tried to be something of a mediator in the past, although we have failed.
	Let us not pretend that, when we presented the proposal now seen as a shining compromise, it was greeted with great enthusiasm by the pro-hunting lobby. It was rejected by all sides. However, broadly speaking the intention behind the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Donoughue is to go back to that position. The negotiations are not primarily for the Government and therefore it would not be sensible for me to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, with the Government's proposition for a compromise. However, it is for this House to make a judgment about what proposal or compromise might engage the majority of the House of Commons in constructive dialogue so that the stage of ping-pong could be constructive rather than a stand-off.
	My solid advice has been this: do not go back to an offer that has already been made because it has already been overwhelmingly rejected; and even more strongly: do not go back with an offer which, from the point of view of the other party, is less desirable than the one it has already rejected. That is common sense. I have been accused of being Delphic, but perhaps I may say that that is blunt common sense and pretty good advice. However, it is the privilege of noble Lords not to take that advice.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am now totally confused. Where on earth do we go back to? The Minister seems to have rejected the only two retractions we can make. Does he have some other retraction that I have not thought of?

Lord Whitty: It is for noble Lords to consider whether there is another alternative which might better engage and thus could lead to a compromise. For example, my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours referred to his own amendment. I do not know whether the House of Commons would accept that proposal, but it is an amendment, along with others, which basically accepts the structure of the Bill. In normal circumstances, therefore, it is an amendment which the House of Commons should seriously consider. I am not sure whether that is a basis for compromise, but in my view it would be a more sensible way of proceeding than the one we are embarked on now.
	Nevertheless, if the House wishes to pursue a system of registration, it would also be sensible to bear in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has graciously accepted; that is, that the proposition on registration is neither the same as that which was put to the House of Commons by Alun Michael in the first place, nor is it the same as that which came out of the Committee in the House of Commons. It does not bear a relationship to the position of either the Government or the pre-ban position of the House of Commons. Bearing all that in mind, at this point the House has to make a judgment on the principle of registration, with the implication on deer hunting, and at later stages it will have to make a judgment on the various points set out in the proposition for registration. However, if noble Lords wish to maximise the area of agreement, even on registration, they should not go further than the original Bill.
	However, it still remains my advice that the original Bill in itself is probably unlikely to lead to a position whereby the House of Commons could accept the proposal being made by the House of Lords, and therefore the House of Lords should be a little more creative, inventive and constructive rather than seek to redefine an already entrenched position. What we are trying to avoid is a collision course, to which for a long time this House has been completely devoted, although one could argue that the vote of the House of Commons also put it on a collision course. But it is in the interest of both the Government and the constitution that we should at least examine whether there are any other means of compromise. Those I have advised against are ones which I genuinely believe will not do the trick, and I suspect that that will be the view of the House of Commons as well.

Lord Carlile of Berriew: Will the Minister help the Committee a little more? As a mediator—to use his word—he has been advising us about what he as a mediator is against. Will he please tell us something, just one thing, that he as a mediator is for, because that might help us to reach conclusions and table further amendments?

Lord Whitty: If the noble Lord had any knowledge of industrial relations he would know that that is not the mediator's job. The mediator encourages the two sides to make propositions which bring them closer to each other. That is the position, I am afraid, and it is the sensible position to take today.
	No doubt noble Lords will be talking across the lines to those who take a different view to see whether there are any other propositions which might secure a positive response in the House of Commons. Certainly the indications from the Government have been that we would consider such propositions, but ultimately the issue before this House is whether noble Lords can come up with a proposition which is likely to engage the majority in the House of Commons. If not, then it will be noble Lords themselves who put the House on course for deadlock and therefore the potential use of the Parliament Act. It would not be the Government and, at this point, it would not be the majority of the House of Commons.
	My points have been procedural, although obviously I could respond also to a number of substantive points. However, we should deal with those in later amendments. In my two interventions I have probably said enough and I therefore defer to my noble friend Lord Donoughue to sum up the debate.

Lord Donoughue: The amendment in my name is about registration, because we may have lost sight of that. I should point out that no one, not even the Minister, has spoken seriously against registration in the sense of pointing out any defects in it as a structural approach. I would also observe that the Minister has just said that the amendments being moved and the position we are moving towards "bear no relationship" to the Alun Michael Bill. I suggest that he might like to think about that again. Others would say that that was nonsense, but I do not use words like that about my noble friends. However, the vast bulk of this Bill, upwards of 90 per cent, is identical.
	The main diversion in our discussion has been into compromise. I shall leave to one side the Parliament Act because that comes later. However, it is sad that, even when giving his reasons, the Minister has declined to indicate any direction towards compromise in which we could move that the Government might accept. I acknowledge that he cannot speak for the House of Commons.
	I believe that this amendment proposing registration is a constructive compromise, and that within the framework of registration other moves towards compromise might be possible. That was indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, in her excellent speech, and by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. It is certainly possible. We are putting forward a structure of registration which contains within it the possibility for further compromise.
	In this situation, one in which we still lack any information from the Government on other acceptable directions of compromise, the amendment would be a major and desirable step forward. I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 322; Not-Contents, 72.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Baroness Lockwood: The Question is—

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: If noble Lords are leaving the Chamber, will they do so quietly and have conversations outside? My noble friend Lady Lockwood is having difficulty being heard.

Baroness Lockwood: The Question is that Clause 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content".

Noble Lords: Content.

Baroness Lockwood: The Contents have it.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Baroness Mallalieu: moved Amendment No. 2:
	After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
	"REGISTERED HUNTING
	(1) Hunting by an individual is registered if he is the subject of individual registration in respect of—
	(a) wild mammals of the species hunted, and
	(b) the area in which the hunting takes place.
	(2) Hunting by an individual is also registered if—
	(a) he participates in hunting by a group,
	(b) at least one of the group is registered under a group registration in respect of—
	(i) wild mammals of the species hunted, and
	(ii) the area in which the hunting takes place, and
	(c) his participation in the hunting is recorded under arrangements made in pursuance of section (Automatic conditions of group registration)(5).
	(3) Hunting by an individual is also registered if—
	(a) he participates in hunting by a number of individuals,
	(b) one of the individuals is the subject of individual registration in respect of—
	(i) wild mammals of the species hunted, and
	(ii) the area in which the hunting takes place, and
	(c) the condition of registration imposed by section (Automatic conditions of individual registration)(5) (maximum number of hunters) is complied with.
	(4) In this Act—
	"group registration" means registration under Part 1A pursuant to an application under section (Application on behalf of group), and
	"individual registration" means registration under Part 1A pursuant to an application under section (Application by individual)."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 2 [Exempt hunting]:

Lord Roberts of Conwy: moved Amendment No. 3:
	Page 1, line 8, after "order" insert ", or in Wales the National Assembly for Wales may,"

Lord Roberts of Conwy: In moving Amendment No. 3, I should like to speak to the remainder of the amendments in this variegated group relating to Wales. They are mainly probing amendments at this stage. We shall all wish to study the impact of the stupendous vote that has just taken place. The success of the amendments that have just been voted on has an implication for some of the amendments in this group.
	The thrust of the matter is that there really is no demand for this Bill in Wales, for the full spectrum of reasons—the full gamut—with which we are all familiar. All the letters that I have received have been against it; they come from hunting and non-hunting people, and from all parts of Wales—from Rhondda, Cynon Taf and Pembrokeshire in the south to Towyn, Llanrwst and Wrexham in the north. The counterpart—the need for hunting to continue—is also very strongly felt in Wales.
	I did not speak on Second Reading because I had expressed my views on a previous occasion—on the second day of the Committee stage of the Bill last year. I shall certainly not repeat that speech in case the Government decide to withdraw the Bill at this stage too. But I described the unique importance of hunting with dogs, usually far more than two, and a ubiquitous scattering of terriers, in keeping down the fox population in an upland mountainous country with literally millions of sheep. The pest control motivation for hunting with dogs is very strong in Wales and is largely maintained by the farming community in its own interests and that of its flocks.
	The temporary suspension of hunting during the foot and mouth crisis in 2001 led to an explosion in the fox population, and lamb losses soared. I had foxes camping on the lawn that summer in my home in the Conwy valley. So I have considerable sympathy with the arguments put forward by those who wish to disapply the Bill to Wales. My favoured amendment is Amendment No. 59 to Clause 17, which would simply exclude Wales from the extent of the Bill. Nevertheless, I recognise that the total exclusion of Wales may not be an acceptable proposition to the Government and their diehard supporters in the other place. In that event, my second preference would be for the implementation of the Bill to be governed by the National Assembly for Wales. It is to achieve that end that the bulk of the remaining amendments in this group is devoted.
	The National Assembly would, one hopes, be more sensitive to the requirements of different areas and interests in Wales. It did, in fact, ask the First Minister, Mr Rhodri Morgan, to approach central government with a view to ensuring that any decision to ban hunting with dogs should be taken by the Assembly rather than by this Parliament. I am bound to say that that made good sense, as the Assembly already has devolved to it some powers related to agriculture and animal welfare.
	In replying to a question from Mr Glyn Davies, a Conservative Member of the Assembly, on 12 October 2003, on the steps that the First Minister might have taken to ensure that any decision to ban hunting with dogs should be taken by the Assembly, the First Minister said:
	"I wrote to Jack Straw, who was the Home Secretary at the time, asking him to take into account the request of the previous Assembly—if I recall correctly, this was in 2001—to allow us to make that decision. He replied that he could not see any way of allowing that, because many hunts near the Wales-England border hunt across that border. He therefore thought that it would be unacceptable".
	It seems to me that cross-border issues of that sort are usually soluble. They occur in the context of many England and Wales Bills in which the Assembly has powers, so I am surprised that that was advanced as a substantial reason for denying the Assembly a role in the Bill's implementation.
	The First Minister went on to say:
	"There are other areas where, as you correctly identified, there is a different pattern of hunting foxes, with gun and foot packs. That is much more common among the 56 hunts in Wales. As far as I am aware, and I will write to you if I am wrong, the Bill, as it is presently constituted, allows for the continued use of dogs to flush out foxes for the purposes of pest control. If I am wrong about that, I will write to you".
	The First Minister has not yet written to Mr Davies, and when he does I hope that he will refer to the two-dog limitation, which is totally absurd, unless it actually means two dogs per huntsman.
	I should have liked to see a clause in this Bill similar to Section 214 in the Education Act 2002, giving the Assembly a role in implementing the Bill in Wales. But that has never been on offer, so we have no option but to try to excise Wales from the scope of the Bill altogether or, failing that, to prescribe a role for the National Assembly as in the amendments in this group. I do not propose to go into them in further detail at this stage, but other Members of the Committee are welcome to do so. I beg to move.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: As my name is on this amendment, I support it and speak, as the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, did, about how important the issue is in Wales.
	The rationale behind the amendments is that many Defra functions have now been devolved to Wales—many more of them relating to agriculture than was first envisaged. The latest transfer of powers relates to veterinary decisions, particularly over disease control. The situation with regard to foot and mouth was very unsatisfactory during the outbreak, because decisions were being taken in London when the situation in Wales was totally different. That change recognises the fact that there is a very different situation in the countryside in Wales.
	One problem in Wales is that there is a huge proportion of monoculture conifer softwood down the central Cambrian mountains area. There are hundreds of thousands of acres of softwood. One might refer to those trees with a wry smile, as they were planted deliberately between 1947 and 1960 for pit props. In retrospect, we know that pit props were themselves to become virtually redundant. Therefore, there is a lot of woodland of very low value, which cannot compete with the woodland from the Baltic states, which have a higher quality of wood on the international market.
	That woodland provides a reservoir for foxes; there are hundreds of thousands of foxes in that unnatural monoculture. There are also, to compound the problem, massive numbers of sheep. There are more sheep in Wales than there are in the whole of Scotland, which is quite something when one thinks about it. The stocking densities are higher in Wales than they are in New Zealand—and sheep farming in those two countries can be compared because of the similarity in numbers of sheep. The fox is unfortunately the main predator on lambs, and there are very substantial losses of lambs from the predation of foxes. Much evidence on that matter was given in the Burns inquiry and in the Portcullis House hearings. Local evidence will prove crucial with regard to licensing and registration.
	There are 49 hound packs in Wales and another seven or eight that cross the border and hunt in both countries. Indeed, the number of amendments in the group is large to cover the differences between Wales and England in terms of foxes, and they give powers to the National Assembly. For example, Amendment No. 3 would allow the National Assembly to vary a class of hunting. Amendment No. 12 would amend Amendment No. 11, which refers to registration. It ensures that the Bill is specific to England, because Wales needs special attention in this respect. The same applies to Amendment No. 14.
	Amendment No. 15 ensures that the National Assembly for Wales can appoint a registrar for Wales. That means that someone who is knowledgeable and truly independent and who knows the situation of foxes and hunts in Wales can assist from a completely objective point of view.
	Amendment No. 54 concerns the time when the Act comes into force. The point behind that amendment is that we want a separate decision from the National Assembly for Wales, which may need to be different. That power is found in Amendment No. 55. Amendment No. 59 would take Wales out of the Bill, and action would be decided by the National Assembly for Wales. Under Amendment No. 86, appeals would be provided for in Wales and the tribunal would sit in Wales, so disputes could be heard and settlements made locally.
	So there are specific amendments to recognise the differences in Wales concerning the Bill. From what I said earlier, it is clear that, especially concerning registration, it is necessary that all those differences are taken into account. There is a democratic body to do so, and those decisions should be devolved to it.

Lord Crickhowell: It is a pleasure to follow my former Member of Parliament in Powys, who speaks with particular knowledge of the conditions that exist in that county and in mid-Wales as a whole. He spoke about the cultivation of monoculture softwoods in Wales combined with intensive sheep farming. I live in a valley where that is especially true; the valley is heavily forested—not entirely, I am glad to say, with conifers for pit props, because it is now being felled and replanted. Luckily, there are markets for that softwood in the paper mills and chipboard mills in Wales. The noble Lord is absolutely right about the conditions that exist there. There is a huge number of sheep on the hills, where the foxes are free to breed and roam in the forestry. Those sheep are therefore particularly vulnerable. So the noble Lord is right to suggest that there is strong feeling among the farming community in that area and other parts of Wales about the Bill.
	I add that I have received representations from my former constituents in Pembrokeshire, many of whose jobs are threatened by the Bill. In fact, it was in Pembrokeshire that I learned painfully the lesson that it is hard to shoot a fox. In my early days as a Member of Parliament there, we used to have a snipe and woodcock shoot in the weeks after Christmas. Around St David's, where the hunt does not go, we used to try to shoot foxes. I fear that we wounded foxes more often than we killed them. To kill a fox with a shotgun, at any rate, is extremely difficult.
	Like my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy, I support Amendment No. 59, to exclude Wales, but we are engaged in the business of compromise. Therefore, like my noble friend, I feel that we must drop that proposal and go along the line of registration. I have mixed feelings about the idea that the Assembly should deal with the matter. Of course, the Assembly could bring local knowledge, but there are problems on the borders. I live close to the border, where neither the hunts nor the foxes will observe the national frontiers. We do not want considerable differences between decisions taken by the authorities in each country. However, I suppose that my greater fear is that if we go down that road, we may again prejudice the compromise that we are all attempting to achieve. I will refrain from a final judgment on that issue until we develop the argument and see whether any form of compromise appears possible.
	As this is the first occasion on which I have spoken during proceedings on the Bill—I did not speak at Second Reading—I want to make one other point. We are continually told, especially by some newspapers and certainly by a considerable number of Members in another place, that hunting is an occupation of the toffs. We are told that people dress up in red coats, and so on. Well, you will not find many red coats among the packs in Wales, and certainly few toffs.
	I illustrate that point with one rather sad example. The son of some very close friends of ours, some near neighbours, was tragically killed at the age of about 19 in a car crash. There was a memorial service in the Roman Catholic church at Abergavenny. It is a very large church. That young man was widely known throughout the county, largely because he had hunted since he was a small boy. I do not think that I have ever seen a gathering that so widely represented the community. The church was packed; it was overflowing. There were not many toffs there. There were miners from the eastern valleys of Monmouthshire; there were farmers; and there were all sorts of people from in and around Abergavenny. It brought home to me, if it had not already been brought home to me through numerous other examples, that hunting is something that brings the community together in a remarkable way.
	I make one other remark about the campaigns that have been fought on the issue in recent weeks and months. Again, we are told that those who were most vigorous in the demonstrations, those who occasionally go a little too far, are all old Etonians or those of a similar kind. I must tell the Committee that that is not true. I fear that a considerable number of them are Welsh former miners, trained by Arthur Scargill in the act of demonstrating vigorously. In Parliament Square, I have seen some of my fellow Welshmen waving the red dragon above their heads as they attacked the gates of Parliament itself.
	I make that point only to reinforce the argument that we are not dealing here with some snobbish pursuit of an elite. In Wales, certainly, we are dealing with an occupation, a sport, a social and agricultural necessity, that embraces a huge range of people. It certainly embraces all those who live in the countryside, or a very large number of them, but, as anyone who knows anything about hunts in south Wales will know, it embraces a large number of miners, steelworkers and others of that character as well. They feel almost more strongly about the matter than anyone else.
	So I conclude my remarks on the amendments by saying that we should not think that this is a matter of dealing with social issues and trying to put down the so-called toffs. We are dealing with something far more important. In Wales, we are dealing with the whole of the community.

Lord Carlile of Berriew: It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. I respectfully disagree with him in one respect. I have total confidence that if compromises are being looked for, Wales can find a compromise to beat them all. The reputation of Welsh fudge at every possible level one could imagine is rightly maintained. Indeed, I suspect that in Wales—I think that I hear the late Lord Geraint in my ear at a moment like this, although he might not put it like this, because he cut his teeth in negotiation and compromise as one of the creators of the Farmers' Union of Wales—we can manage impenetrable subtlety and enduring intellectual integrity with an ease that would baffle the English.
	I wish to make three points. The first is that the character of hunting in Wales is singular, as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said. I have received a very large number of letters on the Bill from people in Powys—mostly, as it happens, from former constituents of my noble friend Lord Livsey rather than my own former constituents. They all point out the singular character of hunting in Wales. As the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said, it is the activity not of "toffs" but of farmers and their friends. Hunting has a very singular rationale in Wales. Under a registration scheme it would combine an economic purpose, which is very important—namely, that of avoiding the deaths of large numbers of valuable young lambs that suffer a very cruel death at the hands particularly of a certain minority of dog foxes—with the welfare principle which I and the other members of the gang of four wish to insert in the Bill. I am making up for lost time tonight as I am also a member of the gang of three, as one of the signatories to this amendment. Therefore, my first point is about the character of hunting in Wales: it is very much a singular type of hunting.
	My second point is about the views of the public in Wales. I know of no public opinion survey that contradicts in the slightest what I am about to say. The predominant number of the population of rural Wales is still engaged in, or is in some way connected with, farming. I am not sure what the relevant figure is now in Powys but in Montgomeryshire, at one time known as north Powys, there used to be 4,000 farmers in my living memory. So there are many thousands of farmers and the whole population, bar a few, is dependent upon that major industry of agriculture. The view of the population of the rural areas of Wales, not only in Powys, is virtually unanimous—as unanimous as one could ever find in political life—in opposing this Bill. Furthermore, the opposition is based not just on the merits of the case but is felt with a passion that exists in my experience only in politics in Wales. It is an opposition founded upon a sense of rank injustice that the Government—it is seen as the Government and not the House of Commons—seek to impose a ban on something which has utility and which is in the interests of animal welfare taken in the round, particularly if it is subject to registration. No one is really opposed to registration.
	However, the more important point perhaps is the following. There are, of course, urban areas in Wales. There are highly industrialised urban areas in the south and some urban areas in the north, particularly in the north-east. Wales has large strips of coast which are to a great extent inhabited by a very mixed population, many of them people who have come from England to enjoy their retirement on the Welsh coast. I can confidently say that in so far as there is opposition in English urban areas to hunting, such opposition is very much less in Wales. On the whole the urban Welsh support hunting, particularly hunting subject to registration. The balance of the urban population of Wales regards what the Government are seeking to do as unjust. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, can blame the House of Commons as much as he wants, but the population in Wales will not accept that it is the House of Commons that has in some way ignored the compromise sought possibly by himself and certainly by the Prime Minister: it will be seen as the Government imposing this upon them.
	The third point I want to make is about devolution. Devolution in Wales is still a very imperfect creature, as was recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, in the commission report that he chaired, and as I think is recognised by almost all Members of the National Assembly for Wales. One of the reasons why devolution in Wales is an imperfect creature is because although in agriculture, for example, functions are very much devolved to Wales, not all of them are devolved. The classic example that I always think of concerns bugs on canals. The canals themselves are subject to control by a Westminster government department, but control of the bugs is devolved. That kind of confusion is not terribly helpful to good government in Wales and it makes it all the more difficult for people in Wales to get their heads round the fact that most Welsh government is run by the Assembly in Cardiff.
	However, devolution is maturing quite well. On the whole support for the devolved functions of the National Assembly is increasing slowly but I think surely. What is absolutely certain is that devolution is here to stay. We have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Roberts and Lord Crickhowell. I believe they both recognise that devolution is part of Wales' future and will continue to be so. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, cited the Assembly member, Glyn Davies, who happens to be the nearest thing I have to a next-door-neighbour. Glyn Davies, who is a very articulate member of the Welsh Assembly, recognises that devolution is part of the permanent political settlement for Wales. If devolution is to mean anything very convincing to the people of Wales—I am trying to avoid making the comparison with Scotland because that is over simplistic—surely the National Assembly for Wales should be able to determine matters of this kind. If it ends up taking a different view from that of England, so what? As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said, I am sure that we can resolve the border issues. I think that I can cite Scotland in this regard as it had to resolve border issues and although that has caused difficulties it has led to neither revolution nor mayhem. My third point is that the maturing process of devolution justifies the amendment to which I have put my name and the devolution of decision-making on hunting to Wales.
	We are not talking about something dramatically different in Wales; we are talking about the registration body in Wales looking at the rather different Welsh conditions. We are talking about the registration body considering the very high number of foxes with regard to the ecology referred to by my noble friend Lord Livsey. We are looking for what seems to me to be a reasonable settlement of the issue.

Lord Moran: This amendment has been put forward by three very distinguished representatives of Wales whom we are lucky to have in our House. I am only sorry that the late Lady White, who used to speak up so passionately for Wales when I first came to the House, is no longer alive because I can imagine what she would have said tonight.
	In his admirable speech on Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, spoke of the importance of hunting in his former constituency of Brecon and Radnorshire. Like the noble Lord who has just spoken, I have always failed to understand how, having decided to devolve some important responsibilities to Wales, some matters of deep concern to Wales' rural population have not been devolved. This was brought home to me tremendously during the foot and mouth crisis when the whole of the government policy was run, not at all efficiently, from London although it affected people deeply in Wales, and all the decisions were taken by people far away who knew nothing of the local problems. Now we have hunting which is quite different in Wales from what it is in most parts of England. Here again policy is decided in London.
	As has been said, there is very strong support for hunting in Wales. The other day my wife and I had to go to our local graziers' meeting, which is something I always enjoy as the meeting is very outspoken. Nearly all the members who attend are working hill farmers. When the meeting broke up I was pushed into a corner and told in no uncertain terms what the members thought about the possibility of a hunting ban. I will not repeat all the things that they said about the House of Commons and the Prime Minister, but they felt very deeply about it.
	Where I live in Radnorshire is wild and rocky country that suits foxes to a T. Hunting is really the only way to control them in the countryside, and they need to be controlled. It would have been far more sensible had Wales been allowed to make up its own mind on such issues, particularly on hunting. Conditions are very different, and it would be much more sensible for policy to be made by those who live in Wales and understand them. Reality being that they are not allowed to decide on the matter, I agree with what was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts—that the National Assembly be allowed to control implementation of the Bill. I am therefore very glad to support the amendment.

Lord Monro of Langholm: It would be appropriate if a Scot gave some support to the Welsh in the debate. They certainly deserve it; they have put their case very strongly. As one who has been around Westminster far too long, I think that the Government's manipulation of the procedure in the House of Commons and here is a disgrace. Under the guise of having a free vote, they think that they can get away with anything, whether it is a guillotine or no time for discussion at Second Reading, in Committee, on Report or at Third Reading in another place, where it was all rushed through in a day merely to suit the Government's wish. It is no use the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, saying that the vote is free, that the matter is up to the Commons and all that. The Government organise everything; they have led the way into the trap and muddle in which we find ourselves.
	I support my Welsh colleagues on the amendment. My old constituency of Dumfries is very similar to parts of Wales, in having deep and steep river valleys in which the only way to hunt foxes was on foot. In my lifetime, we have had three foot packs, one of which was very good until devolution. Welsh Members of the Committee rightly want to give the devolved Assembly the power to make the decision. I hope that they get a better decision out of it than we got from the Scottish Parliament, which all too quickly banned fox hunting and has been singularly unhelpful to the countryside generally. It is essential to have hill packs in Scotland, as it is in Wales. The valleys are too steep for horses, and one has to go on foot to find the earth on the hillsides. They have to be carefully managed in terms of hill lambing each spring. It is vital that we do not have a superfluous number of foxes, which do so much damage to the hill lambs in April and May.
	We want to give all possible power to the Welsh Assembly on the matter, because I suspect that it has much greater knowledge of fox hunting on foot than the Scottish Parliament does. We have already lost the eight Scottish foxhound packs, although they are being revived as gun packs. There has been a loss to the countryside. Farming has been hit hard by the removal of the fallen stock option in relation to the hunt kennels. The Government have certainly not taken that sufficiently into consideration.
	We Scots have seen how important it is to have packs of hounds, and how sad it is that we have lost them through devolution and a Parliament that does not understand the countryside. I hope that the Welsh Members of the Committee are more successful than the Scots.

Lord Elis-Thomas: I will not follow the noble Lord in casting any aspersions at the Scottish Parliament, as it looked after me rather well at the opening ceremony very recently. However, it is a pleasure to concur with the remarks in relation to foot packs and the nature of the countryside. I had not intended to speak at great length on the amendment, but I want to support it. In doing so, I obviously declare an interest as Presiding Officer of the National Assembly for Wales, at least for the next three years.
	I want to try to impress on the Government that the issue is one on which they can pursue the much-heralded compromise that we heard about earlier. I detect nothing constitutionally out of order about Amendment No. 3 or the consequential amendments. However, I was bemused to see that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy—we have shared a valley for many years—had suddenly become a separatist. I assume that he is only a constitutional separatist for the purposes of the Bill; I shall stop there. The rest of the amendments are consequential on the proposal to give the Assembly order-making powers in lieu of those of the Secretary of State within the Bill.
	One of my duties in the National Assembly is to sign the orders proposed by government Ministers and made by the Assembly because, under the relevant Act, they are signed by the Presiding Officer. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has regular dealings with agricultural and countryside ministerial colleagues in Wales; Alun Michael himself was once a Minister of ours, but I should not stray down that avenue either. My point is that the issue is a good example of where an order-making power—it could vary the way in which registration would function in Wales—could work effectively. It could take account of all the views conveyed by other Members of the Committee. I live in the middle of Snowdonia, and have those views conveyed to me forcefully every weekend. We feel it important that we should not only represent those viewpoints, but look for a tidy constitutional way to deal with them. The amendments on a registration system in Wales set up by resolution of the National Assembly on a piece of subordinate legislation seem the clear and obvious way of doing that.
	The matter is not for the House of Commons, but one on which we would expect a view from the Minister. It is very much on the same wavelength as all the other devolution that has taken place on animal welfare and agriculture, as has been pointed out. The Government could make a gesture this evening, and at least indicate that the subject might be returned to during the Bill's passage through this House—even that something might be considered appropriate to be introduced in whatever form when the Bill returns to the House of Commons. That would reflect precisely the form of devolution that we have, in terms of its principle and practicalities. It is not the form that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, hopes to bring to us, but it is the form that we have, whereby primary legislation designed for England and Wales is then adapted by order, with the National Assembly standing in place of the Secretary of State.
	I commend Members of the Committee on producing the amendment, and earnestly hope that the Government can see that it is a fine example of the compromise that they seek.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: In rising briefly, perhaps I can declare my interest as a non-Welshman in this debate among the Welsh. I support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Roberts for two reasons. First, I have spent time hunting in Wales, both on foot and mounted. I have also spent summer holidays in Wales riding there. I know very well all the reasons for this amendment and why it should be a separate matter. I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said. He has put the case for why the Welsh case is separate extremely well and I shall not go over it again.
	Among those reasons are the number of sheep in Wales and the amount of money involved. We are always being told by those who seek reassurance from the inquiry of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, that only 2 per cent or 3 per cent of lambs are killed by foxes. However, if 2 per cent of the approximately 3 million ewes and 4 million lambs in Wales were killed by foxes, it would amount, at £50 per lamb, to a cost of about £5 million to the Welsh rural economy. I think that that should be taken into account. It is not a point that can be put on one side and forgotten. It is a lot of money to Welsh sheep farmers. I agree with everything that noble Lords have said on that.
	The fact that this amendment had to be tabled shows how utterly inadequate the Bill was when it came from the other place. It was railroaded through the other place. It did not have a Committee stage; it was deemed to have had a Committee stage, rather like Alice in Wonderland. So none of these points were examined there. Surely that is what we are here for. That goes to the heart of the weakness that we have to accept the Bill whole or reject it whole if we are not to be threatened with the Parliament Act. It seems utterly absurd that the whole problem for Welsh farming and the depredations of foxes on lambs and on farming should simply be dismissed with no discussion at all. It is so astonishing.
	I hope that this amendment at least will find favour with the Committee, the Government and the other place. Surely it is a matter of natural justice. I strongly support the amendments in this group and what has been said about them. If there is a vote, I shall certainly join noble Lords in the Lobby.

Lord Kimball: For 16 years I was chairman of the British Field Sports Society, which preceded the Countryside Alliance, and for many years I used to have to go down to Wales. It was an eye opener to me, having been brought up in Leicestershire, to see what hunting was like in Wales. We went right down into the valleys on the edge of the Banwen miners' country.
	On another occasion, I was asked to go to Abergavenny. The Monmouthshire hounds went out on a Saturday. Everyone went out mounted, hoping to enjoy themselves, catch a few foxes and have a lot of fun. The next day, they went out as a gun pack. That was an eye opener to me. The cover was surrounded by people with their guns. The same hounds were put in and they flushed the foxes out. And, as always happens on these occasions, there was a fox that was not totally dead. The hounds pursued it and marked it to ground.
	I know that the new rules are different, but, 20 years ago, the rules were perfectly clear. If you marked a fox to ground, you put the terriers in and bolted it, but you had to keep the hounds a long way off and give it a bit of a start. On this occasion, however, the huntsman formed up and said, "You realise, don't you, that lambing starts in a week's time and we have to kill these foxes?". That was the whole attitude of Wales: you have to keep the foxes down.
	I believe that we should support the amendment, which allows the Welsh to make their own arrangements for dealing with the particular problem of foxes.

Viscount Bledisloe: I should like to make one lawyer's point. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, referred to the fact that it was suggested that the objection to his proposal was the difficulty of packs that hunt across the border. I would suggest to him that, at least in relation to registration, that really is not an objection at all. This Bill applies to England and Wales and a registered group will be excused under the amendment that has just been passed. Such groups will be registered whether they are registered in England or Wales. So they will not suddenly start committing an offence as they cross the border. All that will be needed is a reasonable arrangement between the two registrars that each of them deals with the hunt that is predominantly in England or in Wales. There is only one registration, but it seems to me that that registration will be totally valid for them when they cross the border.
	So I hope that the noble Lord will not be daunted in his cause, at least in relation to a Welsh registrar and a Welsh registration system, by the point about cross-border hunting—which seems to be no objection to a separate registration system.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I hope that enough has been said by now by noble Lords who have preceded me to persuade the Minister to consider Wales as a special case and, moreover, that this is precisely the sort of area where the devolved powers of the Welsh Assembly should be called into use. I have not contributed to any hunting debate before now. I have never hunted and have no interest in hunting. However, I have to say that it is something that is deeply embedded in the countryside around my home in north-east Wales.
	I have risen to my feet because the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, referred to north-east Wales. The area where I was brought up was mining, steelmaking and entirely urban, but I never detected any hostility to those in the countryside around who chose to go hunting.
	One of the things that I would like to say to the Committee is how deeply embedded in history is the Watkin Williams-Wynn hunt that surrounds the town of Wrexham, where I live. I recall—it is nothing to do with studies into hunting—that, in about 1735, the Sir Watkin of that day imprisoned a Methodist minister who dared to preach outside the gates of his establishment in Ruabon. The following week, there was a reaction by a Methodist minister coming to the area in order to preach against him. He prayed to God that God would strike down that devil Sir Watkin. On that very day, Sir Watkin was killed. His neck was broken in a hunting accident in Acton.
	So the Watkin Williams-Wynn hunt has been going a very long time. It is from them that I receive the correspondence, as most of your Lordships have, in connection with this matter.
	I also recall that, towards the end of the 18th century, a local author, William Apperley—who wrote under the name of Nimrod many hunting yarns—told the story of the vicar of Gresford, where I live, who was so enthused by hunting that he allowed his parish clerk to give the sermon while he gathered with the local gentry at the back of the church in order to discuss how hunting had gone in the previous week. It is part of the community. The letters that I receive are from people whose livelihood depends on hunting and the existence of the hunts that surround the various urban areas in north-east Wales.
	I believe that this is an issue that the National Assembly should be charged with looking at and regulating as it sees fit. If we are different from England, so be it. Scotland is different, anyway. Whether that is good or bad, I do not know; but I certainly think that the fabric of the Welsh countryside should be in the hands of the National Assembly for Wales.

Earl Peel: I should like to say just a few words in support of the amendment, not out of any particular sympathy—or, indeed, deep affection—for the Welsh, though I have many friends who live there. However, I wish to address this matter purely from a practical point of view. My question for the Minister is: if the Welsh are not to employ fox hunting as a means of controlling foxes, what are they going to do? The same applies to the Lake District, regarding which there is an amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Inglewood. Such areas have relied on fox hunting, not only as a means of social cohesion, but as a practical way of controlling foxes.
	I have an interesting quote from the National Farmers Union of Wales, dated January 2002, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, probably more than anyone in your Lordships' House, will know the difficulties that Welsh farmers and, indeed, all upland farmers, face. The quote states:
	"The ban on fox hunting over the last year (due to the foot and mouth epidemic) has led to an explosion in the fox population to unprecedented levels. In some cases, farmers who lost six or seven lambs to foxes normally, have seen the numbers they lose jump to between 35 and 40".
	I do not think that many small farmers, whether they are in Wales, Dartmoor or the Lake District, can afford to sustain those levels of losses. If they are not going to employ fox hounds and the fell packs to control the foxes, how will they do so? We all know that lamping is a perfectly acceptable way of controlling foxes in certain areas. But there have to be tracks on which vehicles can cross. Much of the countryside that we are discussing in Wales is impregnable for vehicles. Such a means of control would not be feasible. When the Minister replies to my noble friend's amendment, will he explain to the Committee how foxes can be controlled in Wales if a ban on fox hunting came into force?

Lord Palmer: The contribution from the noble Earl, Lord Peel, has summarised how incredibly complex the system of fox hunting is. Like the noble Lord, Lord Monro, I live in Scotland. I wish to echo his words, because we have both suffered from the awful effects of that "pretendy wee parliament" in Edinburgh. It does not begin to understand the countryside and the saddest thing of all is that it does not care about it. The reason that I support these amendments is that I hope that the Welsh will not fall into the same dreadful trap that us poor Scots have had to fall into.

Baroness Byford: I thank my noble friend for bringing this group of amendments to the Committee. I do not often go to Wales, but for the past three years I have been able to holiday in the Brecon area—and would have this year, if the holiday had not been cancelled at the last moment. Like my noble friend Lord Kimball, I am used to the fairly low-lying area of Leicestershire. If I was being critical, I should say that I live on the slightly hillier side of Leicestershire. But in no way does that compare with the terrain that has been referred to by so many noble Lords today. It is that terrain that makes this group of amendments so important.
	When the Minister responds I hope that he will provide facts and figures as to how he envisages the ban operating if it is imposed by another place. Noble Lords have referred to the loss of sheep. In my misspent youth I was a poultry farmer and if we did not get our chickens and hens in before dark we were likely to lose many of them. That situation applies to a controlled area. Where there are areas of hill, forest or rock, it is impossible to gain access to control foxes. The gun packs there have done a tremendous job of trying to protect many of those sheep farmers in Wales.
	On one of my holidays the cottage that we stayed in was supposed to be the highest cottage in the Brecon Beacons—at some 1,200 feet. I was lucky on that occasion, because we had a clear week there and one felt that one was so near to the stars that one could touch them. There was nothing else around us except stars and a profusion of sheep. I have also been to Wales on official visits, and for the farmers that I have spoken to over the years, concern to protect their flocks was key to the success of their long term profitability. So this is an immensely important issue.
	Some noble Lords have referred to the question of what would happen to fallen stock if the Government pushed ahead with a ban. I hope that when the Minister replies he will refer to that, because it is important for Wales, where there may be fewer options for farmers than in England. As my noble friend Lord Peel rightly asked, if a ban is to be imposed, how will those foxes in such difficult areas be controlled? My noble friend and all noble Lords who have spoken should not apologise for having raised this issue, because it is important to Wales. I will always fight the corner for UK farmers and English farmers in particular, but in this case Welsh farmers are that much more threatened than their English counterparts.

Lord Whitty: There has been widespread support for at least the principle of the amendments in the group, including support from some fairly unlikely devolutionists. I must take account of that. However, some of the remarks ignored the obvious effect of the vote we have just taken. We are now talking about a Bill that includes a system of registration. A system of registration would allow the tribunal to look at some of the particular characteristics of Wales, whoever it was run by.
	The problem with the amendment as it stands is that under the Government of Wales Act hunting is a reserved matter. There are no powers for the Assembly in that Act. To reopen that issue would threaten to reopen the matter of the whole devolution settlement. I appreciate that some of your Lordships might be in favour of that, but it is a much bigger issue than the matter that we are dealing with today. It is true that members of the Assembly, Ministers and others in Wales provided evidence to Alun Michael in the period before the original Bill was brought before the House of Commons. Their views were taken into account and there was no separate proposition for Wales in the original Bill; nor was it considered necessary in Committee in the House of Commons. Of course, some administrative arrangements could be made under the unified system, with a tribunal meeting in Wales, which would make it convenient for those who had issues relating to specific terrain or problems of pest control and so on within Wales. Within a registered system it would not be necessary to devolve powers to take account at least of some of Wales' special characteristics.
	Having said that, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, indicated that this was a probing amendment at this stage and I hope that he will not take it any further this evening.

Earl Peel: Perhaps the Minister could explain to the Committee how, if a ban was implemented, he would expect the Welsh Assembly to control foxes, given the circumstances that noble Lords have explained.

Lord Whitty: I suspect that, in the light of the decision made by the Committee, that matter is strictly out of order.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: That remains an interesting question which is at the heart of the debate. I thank the Minister for his brief reply, but I also thank all noble Lords who have participated in this enlightening debate. We have covered a substantial group of amendments with varied notions behind them. But there were certain points on which all speakers agreed. The first was that made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, regarding the singular nature of hunting in the countryside in Wales. It is something with which we have all been brought up and which we all enjoy. It is certainly not, as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said, a pastime for the snobbish and so on. Many people in Wales who wear red ties also wear red coats, especially when one goes in the direction of the Banwen hunt.
	So we are certainly all agreed on that point. We are all agreed also about the importance of hunting to agriculture. I am grateful to my noble friends who mentioned the very real lamb losses that have been and are incurred in Wales because of foxes. My noble friend Lord Peel was absolutely right to say that during the foot and mouth epidemic, lamb losses leapt from a fairly low average to something of the order of 35 to 40.
	Although there are many ways, as we all know, of reducing the fox population, in the terrain of Wales—in the uplands and the mountainous regions—there is really nothing for it but to hunt the fox population with dogs. That has been borne out to me on a variety of occasions. A farmer at Betws-y-Coed, at the far end of our valley, was plagued by a fox that killed more than 30 of his lambs, which was a loss that he, as a small farmer, could not endure. He tried everything—lamping, shooting and so on—but nothing could dislodge that fox apart from, in the end, the call on the Aber Hunt, and, of course, the dogs were effective.
	The whole subject of devolution has also been raised. In my opening speech, I referred to a reply that was given by Mr Rhodri Morgan in the National Assembly for Wales. Anyone who listened to that reply would know that Mr Morgan was clearly not particularly interested in this Hunting Bill, because he did not know that it prohibited hunting with more than two dogs. His reply made me wonder why he was not so interested in hunting. Perhaps it is a measure of the unpopularity of the Bill that no profound cry has been heard from the National Assembly for the right to implement it. Certainly, it is very unpopular in Wales and none of those who spoke in this debate indicated anything other than total opposition to the ban.
	I thank again those who have participated and I end where I began; that is, by recognising the fact that the overwhelming vote in favour of registration earlier today will certainly have an impact on the view that we take of the various amendments in this group. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?

Earl Peel: As Schedule 1 is attached to Clause 2, it would be right and proper to draw to your Lordships' attention the anomalies that exist in Schedule 1. I do not know to what extent your Lordships have had the opportunity to examine it in close detail but, quite frankly, as it stands, it deems this legislation to be virtually unworkable.
	There are clearly two issues here: the issue of hunting and whether we should be allowed to continue; and the practical implication of the legislation. It is the latter which I would like to draw to your Lordships' attention.
	The Government made a firm commitment, which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, confirmed at Second Reading, that it was not their intention to impinge in any way on shooting or fishing. However, I would suggest that Schedule 1 impinges quite considerably on shooting. I acknowledge that I have tabled a number of amendments that will deal with these specific points later on, but it is worth looking at Schedule 1 as it stands. As I have said, it is an unworkable piece of legislation.
	As I understand it, if a beater on a pheasant shoot had more than two dogs, he would be committing an offence. One would have to ask whether 20 beaters with one dog each were committing an offence. I welcome the anomaly that gamekeepers would be allowed to use a dog underground to control foxes for game birds, but why on earth would farmers not be able to do the same in order to protect livestock?
	Furthermore, it would be illegal to put a dog underground to control a fox in order to protect birds which are not being preserved for shooting. Therefore, if the warden of a nature reserve on which there is golden plover, curlew or whatever finds foxes creating difficulties—as undoubtedly they do—he would not be able to control them by that method. The provision is riddled with anomalies and, frankly, I deem this legislation unworkable.
	However, one point is more important than all others; the inconsistency in our dealings with mammals. Why is it that rabbits and rats can be hunted with more than two dogs, yet mice, stoats or weasels cannot? That strikes me as completely inconsistent. Unless the Government can come forward with a moral and scientific justification for these strange differentials, I question whether the schedule has any relevance.

Lord Eden of Winton: I agree with the noble Earl that time would be saved if the Minister could answer one or two of the points that have been made. I have a worry about Schedule 1. It describes exempt hunting being where two dogs are used in flushing a wild mammal out of cover provided that it is shot dead by a competent person. That is one of the conditions. Do the proponents of a hunting ban really want dogs to be used to flush an animal out of cover, provided that a competent marksman stands ready to shoot it dead? That seems an absolute absurdity.
	If that is what the Minister regards as exempt hunting, it is way beyond anything I can imagine in terms of animal cruelty. I therefore hope that he will take this opportunity to give an explanation.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: We have a difficulty because amendments have been tabled to Schedule 1, and it is very difficult to reply on the provisions of that schedule in advance of those amendments. In a way, it would be more practical to consider the Question whether the clause shall stand part following the Committee's deliberations on those amendments.

Viscount Astor: In that case, I shall ask the Minister a slightly different question, which relates specifically to Clause 2(2). That subsection states:
	"The Secretary of State may . . . amend Schedule 1 so as to vary a class of exempt hunting".
	I do not want to go into the detail of Schedule 1 but, following what was said by my noble friend, can the Minister tell us under what principles the Government are including those mammals in Schedule 1? Indeed, if the Government want the power to vary the measure, how do they consider that they will do that? What are they looking at? Are they to vary the types of animals that are included or, under Clause 2, can they vary the terms on which those animals may or may not be hunted? It would be helpful if the Minister could answer the questions of principle that relate to Clause 2 rather than those relating to any individual parts, to which the noble Baroness referred, when we consider the amendments to Schedule 1.

Lord King of Bridgwater: I rise briefly to support the Motion that Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill. I am suffering a certain amount of shock, as, I am sure, is the Minister, for whom I have a growing sense of sympathy due to the position in which he finds himself. He gave clear advice to the House and then found that his noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor had voted against him, as did a number of his ministerial colleagues, in what was, in my brief experience of this House, a fairly overwhelming vote in favour of the setting up of registered hunting.
	I am concerned about Clause 2 because of the continual problem of registration, regulation, licensing, or whichever word one chooses, and the complexities that it brings with it. I am an unashamed admirer of, and would prefer to see, self-regulation, for the reasons that I gave a little earlier. There is no question that one success that those who are opposed to cruelty and hunting can claim is that hunting is now in the spotlight and that the hunting community is determined to see that its activities are conducted in an acceptable and fair way.
	From the debates at Second Reading and earlier today, it is clear that a number of Members who are opposed to hunting, and who have expressed their views clearly, have had unpleasant experiences. Having heard a description of those experiences, no noble Lord will have had any difficulty in recognising them to be quite unacceptable and matters on which, in the current climate and the foreseeable future, the Masters of Foxhounds Association and others will have no hesitation in taking drastic action. That is a success.

Lord Hoyle: I think that the noble Lord will agree that it was disgraceful to invade the Chamber of the House of Commons. Can he explain to me what action has been taken against those people by any master of foxhounds?

Lord King of Bridgwater: As the noble Lord will know, that is a matter for the police. Of course, the invasion was wrong. I do not think that we want to overdramatise it. Although they should certainly not have been there and it was wrong that they were there, I do not think that those involved in the Chamber did any damage. I believe that they assisted the Deputy Serjeant at Arms to his feet when he fell over, and they behaved in an otherwise courteous way. However, the invasion was unacceptable, and the noble Lord and I, who have served in another place, would be the first to defend the sanctity of the House of Commons and its Chamber. I hope that the noble Lord is not suggesting that that is a reason to ban hunting, as I do not think that that argument would stand. However, he has had unpleasant experiences.

Lord Hoyle: The noble Lord—

Lord King of Bridgwater: May I continue—

Lord Hoyle: The noble Lord does not understand the point that I was making.

Lord King of Bridgwater: The noble Lord made his personal view absolutely clear. He thinks that hunting is cruel and he does not accept cruelty. Of course, he has not studied the matter with anything like the depth that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his commission have done. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, made clear that his commission did not find that hunting was cruel and they made that clear in their report. The noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, has his personal view, which he is perfectly entitled to have. But he is seeking—

Lord Hoyle: The noble Lord—

Lord King of Bridgwater: I am sorry; I shall not give way. With great respect to the noble Lord, this is not a conversation—

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I understand that the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, does not wish to give way at this point. It is Committee, and my noble friend can intervene later. I repeat my warning that we are debating at length whether a clause shall stand part of the Bill, but we shall come to that clause later. The Committee may like to know that the whole debate may be repeated then, and it may not wish that to happen.

Lord King of Bridgwater: In the interests of the Committee and of time, the noble Lord will excuse me if I do not engage in a running interchange. I know that his views are different from mine. I am simply making a valid point, and I hope that he will allow me the freedom to make it. He has a personal view about cruelty. It is not a view that I share. From the vote, it will be clear to him that it is not a view that the vast majority in the Committee shares. Against that background, I am obviously disappointed that the noble Lord feels that he should seek to impose his view, as have those in another place. They not only disagree with the other view but they are compelling other people not to pursue what they think is right.
	The reason that I rose to speak is that the new clause proposed in Amendment No. 2 is the start of the process of debate on various amendments relating to registered hunting. That is the new clause that we shall add to the Bill if the Committee decides to vote for it.
	The reason that I was disappointed with the comments of the Minister is that we in this Chamber have another duty. Having said that I think that it is the least worst alternative to my preferred option—I am compromising on that and am prepared to say that we should go for registration—if we put it in place, we have a duty to ensure that it is workable.
	Having inherited a Bill which the Ministers responsible for it themselves say is not workable, the biggest crime that we could commit would be to introduce a registration system that was not workable. That is why I attach such importance to the amendments which are not before us at present and which, in the interests of the noble Baroness, I shall not discuss. But the principle of registration, establishing the new clause and ensuring that we debate the further issues and make it workable are very important.

Lord Jopling: I shall speak briefly. I have a great deal of sympathy for the remarks expressed by my noble friend Lord Astor a short time ago. I am uneasy about Clause 2(2). The noble Baroness will be glad to hear that I shall not go into the detail of Schedule 1, but that schedule is a very extended piece of literature.
	It seems to me that if the Bill were to go through with Clause 2 in its present form, giving the Secretary of State the power to amend by order any class of exempt hunting in Schedule 1, a coach and horses could be driven through the Bill by the very simple parliamentary device of laying an order. It does not say here, although I imagine that it is stated somewhere in the Bill, whether it is an affirmative or negative order, and those are very different matters. I should have much preferred the Bill to say that the Secretary of State may by order amend Schedule 1 so as to extend, rather than vary, a class of exempt hunting.
	We may go through the whole parliamentary process of this House and another place by making amendments to the Bill. It must go through the process of primary legislation, but the Bill could be changed completely by the device of laying a statutory instrument. I think that that is very dangerous and perhaps we should think about that between now and Report.

Lord Whitty: My reply will be slightly strange because issues have been raised on a schedule on which we have subsequent amendments and, with one or two honourable exceptions, on more general points in a debate on clause stand part. I do not believe that that is an appropriate use of a debate on clause stand part.
	The key issue which relates to the clause stand part debate was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, and referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling. Almost all the other remarks were either general or related to something that will arise under Schedule 1. I shall deal first with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, raised.

Viscount Astor: You are muddling me up with my cousin. I am the Viscount. It is an easy mistake to make. My cousin is the nice one.

Lord Whitty: It is only my second mistake—maybe I have made more. I apologise to the noble Viscount and to his cousin.
	The second part of the clause includes a provision allowing the Secretary of State, by order, to vary an exemption as provided in Schedule 1. That is a much more limited power than the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, feared. It does not permit new exemptions to be added, or ones that are there to be subtracted. But it enables the detailed conditions set out in Schedule 1, relating to those different mammals or operations, to be varied in the light principally of changes in best practice for securing animal welfare outcomes. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, those changes would be subject to affirmative rather than to negative resolution.
	To be honest, I believe that was the only point on Clause 2 as it stands, which is a clause that was in the original Bill. As it introduces Schedule 1, it applies equally well to a registration system and to a ban. I do not believe that any other points were made on the clause to which I need reply.

Baroness Byford: Before the noble Lord sits down, I apologise to the House for the fact that I am struggling with my voice at the moment. My noble friends have raised two important issues. I believe the Minister said that the clause varies a class of exempt hunting and that that would relate to a matter of animal welfare. If that is so, would it not be more sensible if it said that? At the moment it certainly does not say that.
	On the second point, raised by my noble friend Lord Jopling, the Minister knows well that I am not keen on statutory instruments and orders coming through, although it would be an affirmative one, because at that stage there would be very little that the House could do to alter it, whereas in Committee we can make alterations. Perhaps the Minister would quickly comment on that.

Lord Whitty: If the noble Baroness wishes to table an amendment at a later stage no doubt we can reflect on that. On being able to change the conditions that relate to animals or activities specified in Schedule 1, that would be by affirmative order and would probably be introduced on the basis of changes in experience and best practice in animal welfare circumstances, but there could be other reasons.
	The point I am making is that this clause is primarily to introduce Schedule 1 and it is equally applicable to a system of registration. Therefore, I would hope that any attempt to remove the clause, which would destroy many of the purposes of exemptions to registration or exemptions to a ban subject to registration, would fall. I am not sure if the other points were, in reality, points to be made in a clause stand part debate. I hope that that will not be repeated at later stages of the Bill.

Viscount Astor: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. He said that there is a limited power of variation. In the mean time, I have looked at the Bill, but I cannot find where that comes in. It is not in Clause 1. Can the Minister tell me where it comes in? He said the power was limited in the way that it affected exempt hunting and exempt animals. I cannot find it in the Bill. I am sure that the Minister and his advisers will be able to tell me quickly where it is.

Lord Whitty: It is in the clause to which he objects. The clause states:
	"may by order amend . . . so as to vary a class".
	It does not say "add" or "exclude" a class specified. It says that it can vary the definition and the conditions attached to the exemption.

Clause 2 agreed to.
	Clause 3 [Hunting: assistance]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?

Viscount Astor: I have a brief question for the Minister. It relates to coursing, but not, of course, to hare coursing as referred to in Clause 5, which deals with coursing events. Those of us who live near the downs in Oxfordshire suffer from illegal coursing. It happens every weekend and it happens in one of my fields on the edge of the downs. Almost every weekend groups of people—often more than a dozen—participate in coursing there. We have one extremely helpful policeman with a Land Rover who occasionally comes along and chases them but, not unreasonably, he is somewhat nervous of getting out of his vehicle and dealing with them because there are more of them than us.
	When I read this clause I suddenly realised that it says,
	"knowingly permits land which belongs to him to be entered or used".
	I do not want those people there, but I am rather concerned that I knowingly permit them because I have no way of stopping them. Can the Minister tell me whether that is an adequate defence?

Lord Whitty: Any action taken under threat of force can be taken as an offence. The point of the clause is to make it an offence to permit illegal hunting, or if coursing were back in, subject to a subsequent amendment that we shall reach shortly, it would be an offence to allow people knowingly to operate on your land. Anything that is done under duress, of course, is covered by the criminal law in any case.

Clause 3 agreed to.
	Clause 4 [Hunting: defence]:

Lord Donoughue: moved Amendment No. 4:
	Page 1, line 18, after "was" insert—
	"(a) registered, or
	(b) "
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Carlile of Berriew: I want to raise a very short but important point. Clause 4 sets out a defence of a person charged with an offence under Clause 1. It is what is called in my profession and by the judiciary a reverse onus provision. It requires the person charged to prove on the balance of probabilities that he believed that the hunting was now register exempt and to prove that that belief was reasonable.
	It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that the Government either have taken into account or will take into account the very recent decision of your Lordships' House in the case of DPP v Sheldrake, which was reported in recent days. It may be that a reverse onus provision of that kind may be found not to be compatible with the European Convention and may require some amendment.

Lord Whitty: The noble Lord will recognise that this is a standard safeguard to ensure that people who have no intention of doing something illegal are not found guilty of doing so if they reasonably believe that it is legal. I am not aware of any implication from the case that he cites. Clearly, I shall take the matter away and see if there are any implications. If there are, it will have fairly widespread implications in other statutes.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: This may be an appropriate moment to move that the House be resumed. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.30 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Damages (Variation of Periodical Payments) Order 2004

Lord Triesman: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16 September be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Triesman: Perhaps I may set out the background to this order and explain why we believe it is necessary.
	In March 2002, the then Lord Chancellor published a consultation paper called Damages For Future Loss: Giving the Courts the Power to Order Periodical Payments for Future Loss and Care Costs in Personal Injury Cases. It sought views on the use of periodical payments in personal injury cases as an alternative to or in addition to the payment of awards for future loss by way of a lump sum. The proposals in that paper were widely welcomed and were taken forward in Sections 100 and 101 of the Courts Act, which completed its passage through Parliament in November 2003.
	The consultation paper also sought views on a number of options relating to the variation of periodical payments. The majority of responses were in favour of some form of variation. Provisions were therefore included in the Courts Act to enable the Lord Chancellor by order to specify the circumstances in which the courts should be able to vary a periodical payments order or an agreement between the parties. This order-making power was subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses. It is clear to me from study of the debates that people were very keen to see affirmative resolution as the right method.
	The issues surrounding the variation of periodical payments were extensively debated in both Houses during the passage of the Courts Act. In those debates the Government made clear their belief that the ability to vary payments in certain limited circumstances has a part to play in the scheme for periodical payments. Ministers made clear that the scope for variation would be tightly controlled and undertook that the proposed order would limit the variation to distinct and foreseeable medical changes in much the same way as the current system for lump-sum provisional damages.
	While we hope that the use of periodical payments in appropriate personal injury cases will become the norm, it is likely that the use of variable orders will be very limited. In the majority of cases a non-variable award is likely to be more appropriate. But, because the amount of the award has to be calculated at the time of the original court order, where there are real difficulties in assessing the likelihood of a claimant developing a particular medical condition or indeed overcoming a particular medical disability at the time the periodical payment order is made, it can involve estimates of future need, which may not be accurate.
	In some cases claimants might not receive the compensation to which they are entitled, resulting in either their needs not being met or their having to be funded by the taxpayer, whereas in other cases defendants and insurers make substantial and unnecessary contingency payments for events which never occur. This is clearly the worst of both worlds. In these cases a variable order can provide the best solution. To ensure that the power to vary is properly controlled and focuses on the cases where it is most appropriate, Ministers indicated during the debate that the circumstances in which variation could be requested must be set out in the initial court order and must relate only to the claimant's medical condition attributable to the original accident.
	Ministers also indicated that the court's permission would be required before an application for variation could proceed. These commitments are reflected in the terms of the draft order which is before the House today.
	The central provisions of Articles 2 and 9 of the order are similar to those currently applicable to claims for lump-sum provisional damages. The difference is that in this case defendants will be able to apply for variation as well as claimants, and the circumstances in which an application may be made include both a serious deterioration and a significant improvement in the claimant's condition.
	The power to make a provisional damages award in addition to an order allowing variation is preserved, although the cases in which this might be considered appropriate are likely to be rare. The order applies to agreements between the parties as well as to court orders and also sets out various procedural requirements governing variable orders and agreements and applications for variation.
	Before an order can be made the provisions of the Courts Act require the Lord Chancellor to consult such persons as he thinks appropriate. As I have already said, full consultation took place in 2002, followed by extensive debate in both Houses. The Government considered carefully all the points raised. This order reflects the commitments given to both Houses as a result of those considerations.
	Since then there have been further consultations on the drafting of the order with a range of key stakeholders, including claimants' representatives, insurers and medical defence organisations. A regulatory impact assessment has been prepared. That has been laid before the House. Our intention is that this order should be brought into force shortly alongside the rules of court and other provisions that are necessary to govern the court's ability to make periodical payments.
	I do not think this needs further or more elaborate description. In conclusion, I believe that the ability to vary payments in certain carefully defined circumstances is an important element in realising the benefits of periodical payments. The draft order before the House adopts a fair and balanced approach to achieving these aims. It also accurately reflects—as it should—the commitments given by Ministers during the passage of the Courts Act. I therefore ask the House to approve this order. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16 September be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Triesman.)

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the very helpful way in which he has set out the historical background to, and the details of, the draft order. Once again I declare my interest as senior partner of Beachcroft Wansbroughs.
	The Minister asked whether he could add anything. Perhaps at the conclusion of the debate he might define what the word "shortly" means. It would be very helpful if we could have an indication whether that means January or February of next year. I understand that at the moment it is more likely to be February, but it would be so helpful to all those involved if we could have a more specific commitment.
	This is a very important opportunity, not only to debate the particular power under this order to vary periodical payments, but also to seek certain clarifications from Ministers on the issue of periodical payments themselves.
	First, I should very much like to know if Ministers have come to an agreed view on how widely they expect periodical payments to be used. The ministerial trumpet has recently sounded a trifle uncertain with regard to this matter. It would be helpful to clarify the position.
	I would remind the House that when we debated the Courts Bill the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, said that the Government's proposals aimed,
	"to promote the widespread use of periodical payments as a means of paying compensation for future financial loss and care costs in personal injury cases".—[Official Report, 27/3/03; col. 930.]
	That appeared to be the kind of unequivocal statement that the courts might welcome as they worked to bed down the new system.
	I must, however, now ask the Minister to clarify the position in view of last week's comments in another place by his colleague, Mr David Lammy, which on the face of them seem to contradict directly those of the noble Baroness. In the Sixth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation on 20 October, Mr Lammy said that,
	"it was expected that there would be quite a small number of periodical payments, in the same way as there is a relatively small number of provisional damages".
	He went on to say:
	"We estimate that periodical payments would be . . . a small part of the total amount."
	I hope that Mr Lammy meant to say that it was expected that there would be a small number of periodical payments which would be varied. If he had said that, I would agree with him because, as this House concluded on our previous debate on the matter, it is certainly important that the scope of variation be tightly controlled. Perhaps the Minister would take this opportunity to untie the knot and sort out for us exactly what the Government's position is.
	During the same debate in the other place on 20 October, Mr David Heath raised questions about the application of Section 2(4) of the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948, which he described as an anomaly. Mr Lammy replied that the Government were considering such issues, with a view to further consultation if appropriate.
	The Chief Medical Officer proposed in his excellent report Making Amends that Section 2(4) should be abolished, so far as clinical negligence was concerned. Last September, in a Written Answer, the Government stated that they were considering abolition for other personal injury claims, too. That was warmly welcomed at the time. It would be helpful to know the present position. It is indeed anomalous that the courts are prevented under Section 2(4) from considering the treatment which might be freely available under the National Health Service to help with the rehabilitation of the injured party, and, in particular, with their future care.
	The insurance industry is more than capable of putting forward imaginative proposals in this area. Indeed, as of next April, it is facing up to its responsibility to pay out an additional £150 million for emergency health service treatment provided to those injured negligently, mainly those injured at work. Rather than operating simply as a levy, the money could be targeted at producing better facilities for ensuring that people have an early opportunity to return to work and to a good quality of life. I believe that it is generally agreed that the facilities under the National Health Service could well be improved in that very important respect. It would be very helpful for the insurance industry and all of us to have at least some indication of the timescale within which the Government expect to operate.
	In the field of compensation, a much closer match to the needs rather than the wishes of the injured party is vital. I recall that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, said in the same debate that,
	"it is our intention that the Civil Procedure Rules, supported by practice directions, will provide guidance to assist the court in making an order that best meets the needs of the claimant".—[Official Report, 27/3/03; col. GC 932.]
	Already under Section 100 of the Courts Act 2003, Civil Procedure Rules are to be made with regard to what consideration should be taken into account by the court in deciding whether to order periodical payments. I am sure many would agree that it would be very helpful if the rules could stress, in particular, the need for the court to have regard to the form of award that best meets the claimant's needs. A restatement of that overriding principle would now be welcome.
	As the Minister is aware, however, whenever retrospection is involved, considerable clarity and caution should be exercised. I am well aware that no government will ever be able to sweep away the incubus of possible retrospection once and for all, but I hope that new elements of uncertainty will never be introduced gratuitously or needlessly. When there is such a strong perception of a compensation culture, it is vital that compensation should not exceed "sustainable" levels, with regard both to the level of costs and to the predictability of the level of damages.
	Returning to the question of periodical payments, I know that the Minister will agree with me that it is essential that judges be given clear and consistent guidance as well as adequate training. Not only do I ask that such guidance be provided, but perhaps the Minister might look kindly on a plea that such guidance be made public in order that everyone can understand the way in which this new system is to operate.
	There is strong support in principle for periodical payments; in particular, when they form part of a structured settlement. There are great advantages for all concerned. They will enable the courts to give claimants the guaranteed level of income they require and deserve to meet their needs, in place of a lump sum, with all the defects which the Minister outlined and are conceded by all those who have to operate the system. It is, therefore, a great responsibility to ensure that the system is readily understood from its very earliest days by everyone who has to work within it. Let our watchwords be: caution, clarity and consistency.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the courts have had power for some years to make orders for provisional damages. Those powers are set out in what is now Section 32A of the Supreme Court Act 1981. That means that, where there is at the time of the trial an uncertain prognosis of the injury caused by the defendant's negligence, an order can be made for payment of damages immediately, that order being calculated on the basis of a favourable prognosis. But if the condition of the claimant deteriorates, the claimant then has the right to come back to ask for additional lump-sum damages.
	That principle has been criticised from two very different directions. First, insurers and medical organisations such as the Medical Defence Union and the Medical Protection Society are concerned about the uncertainty that they, or their members, face regarding the amount of the liability. Secondly, doctors such as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, are concerned at the effect of continued uncertainty on the claimants.
	The Courts Act 2003 gave the courts a new power to make orders for periodical payments as an alternative to lump-sum damages. Until then, periodical payments could be made only under structured settlements. We certainly welcome the power to make an order for periodical payments in contested cases, not just where the parties agreed to a structured settlement. Now it is obvious that the problems with an uncertain prognosis apply to a case where a periodical payment has been ordered as much as they apply to a case where a lump sum has been awarded.
	The Courts Act, when it was a Bill, included a wide power to make orders to vary a periodical payments order or settlement providing for periodical payments. That power of variation was criticised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, in a powerful speech in the Committee stage of the Courts Bill. She said:
	"Leaving settlements open to review may mean that patients cannot complete the grieving process that will and must occur. They cannot have closure".—[Official Report, 27/3/03; col. GC 940.]
	When taking part in that debate, I recognised the force of the noble Baroness's argument, but I could also see real value in allowing variation of earlier orders in a limited class of cases. Therefore in the debates on the Courts Bill I welcomed the power to vary an order for periodical payments or a structured settlement, but only on strict conditions. There were two conditions. First, that the power to vary an order should be limited to circumstances corresponding to those where an order for provisional damages could already be made under Section 32A of the 1981 Act. Secondly, the power should be limited to circumstances where the original order or settlement expressly provided for the possibility of the subsequent variation.
	I wanted those conditions to be written into the Bill. The Government refused to put those restrictions in the Bill, except in one limited respect where they accepted my amendment relating to structured settlements. But the present order meets the spirit of the conditions that I wanted to put in the Bill. We therefore are happy to welcome it.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, pointed out, the power to vary a periodical payment order differs from the rules for provisional damages. Unlike provisional damages, it permits a downward variation as well as an upward variation. I accept that as being entirely reasonable. The provisional lump sum damages cannot be varied downwards without recovering a payment that has already been made to the claimant. The drawbacks of trying to do that are obvious. In the case of a periodical payment order, future payments can be reduced without clawing back what has already been paid. Therefore, on those grounds, I am happy with that.
	I have one small query. I note that the order in Article 13 does not appear to provide for the possible termination of a periodical payment where the claimant has fully recovered, which will happen no doubt from time to time. But, presumably, it could, without being terminated, be reduced to a nominal sum. Can the Minister confirm that that is the position?
	I should finally add that if the Government come back with a further order to provide for variation of periodical payments in circumstances that are additional to those covered by this order, which fall outside the conditions that I sought to enforce when debating the Courts Act, in such circumstances we would be unable to promise our support for any such further order.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for what has been a brief but unquestionably useful debate, which gives us a real chance to clarify the issues. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, who has raised a number of points. As I was able to have a sense of what those points would be, I hope that I can respond to them fully and ensure that we are all in a position where we can share information. There is a sentiment on all sides of the House that we want this to work and to work sensibly.
	Perhaps I may start with the noble Lord's kind invitation to say what is meant by the word "shortly" and to provide a firm date for implementation—preferably specifying January or February. I am afraid that I cannot make a specific commitment on the implementation date for periodical payments until the rule committee has completed its consideration of the rules and practice directions. That is the only reason that I am unable to do so today. Once they are finally agreed, the Government will be in a position to make a firm decision on implementation. I undertake that we will make that information available as rapidly as we can. Obviously, it is in everyone's interests that we do so.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, also asked how widely Ministers expect periodical payments to be used. As I indicated in my opening remarks, the Government wish to promote the widespread use of periodical payments. I want to emphasis that in case there was any lack of connection between what was said by ministerial colleagues in different places. We wish to promote the widespread use of periodical payments, but not the widespread use of variations, which we expect to be rare.
	We hope that the use of periodical payments will be appropriate in personal injury cases and that they will become the norm in those cases. I gave reasons why I thought that it was unlikely that there would be widespread use or, indeed, anything other than very narrow use of variable orders. We think that it will be limited.
	Such evidence as there is—I do not want to overstate the quality of the evidence so far—was considered at paragraph 25 of the Regulatory Impact Assessment. That formed the basis for making at least some extrapolations which we think would be useful.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, also asked what the position is in relation to the repeal of Section 2(4) of the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948. As he quite rightly indicated, the Chief Medical Officer recommended in his report entitled Making Amends that Section 2(4) of the 1948 Act should be repealed so far as clinical negligence claims are concerned. Instead, packages of care should be provided under the NHS.
	As a result of the wider issues that this recommendation plainly raised, the Government indicated that they intend to consider the implications for personal injury claims generally and much more thoroughly, which is a proper response to the Chief Medical Officer's views. We are giving careful consideration to the wider picture and have been discussing some of the options with stakeholders, including insurers, with a view to further consultation if appropriate.
	We of course recognise the important part that rehabilitation has to play. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made that point on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. There is a balance here to be struck. Plainly, no one would want to do anything that would prevent someone from reaching closure on what would have been an extremely difficult and unpleasant episode in his or her life. Equally, I do not think that anyone on any side of the House would want to see a decision taken which meant that some really significant change—for the better or for the worse—was not taken into account.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked for a restatement that the overriding principle in determining whether periodical payments are appropriate should be that the needs of the claimant are paramount, not the claimant's wishes. I very strongly agree on that point. On behalf of the Government, I say that we as the Government strongly agree. As the noble Lord indicated, the draft rules that are currently being finalised by the Civil Procedure Rule Committee state that in deciding whether to make a periodical payments order, the court should have regard to all the circumstances of the case and, in particular, the form of award that best meets the claimant's needs. That is the right way to go. It is the way in which we are being urged to go. It is probably the only way in which we can offset the possible risks of a compensation culture taking over in this area.
	The final major question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral—I hope that I have not missed any—was whether there would be guidance and training for the judiciary and whether that guidance would be made public. I want to confirm formally today that guidance is being developed for the judiciary on the new system for periodical payments contained in Sections 100 and 101 of the Courts Act. That sort of guidance would normally be included in the Bench Book, which is available on the Judicial Studies Board's public website. It will be publicly available; it is right that that should happen.
	Some points were made about funding and the position on full recovery. I hope that I have dealt at least with the issue of closure because it came up in a more general sense in our discussion today. I am aware of the difficulties that have been expressed on funding, some being expressed in the annuities market. The range of products is perhaps not as wide as it needs to be in order to deal with all of those kinds of questions. But there are discussions, which officials are actively involved in, with the insurance industry about its concerns. Those discussions focus on the issues relating to wider questions about the funding of periodical payments in general rather than simply the provisions of this order on variation. That is really the force of the argument; it needs to do that.
	Discussions have also taken place with medical defence organisations, which I think are right to believe that there will be some impact on their balance sheets. There may be a small increase in administrative costs. However, insurers and medical defence organisations already reserve for further damages claims in provisional damages cases. They ought to be able to do essentially the same here without making any real change in the amounts required. Estimates that have been made in the insurance industry and medical defence organisations have in general been relatively low and do not suggest that there would be a spectacular change.
	I shall deal briefly with the point about full recovery. It is right to say that the order does not appear to provide for termination, but I agree with the noble Lord that the order could be reduced to a nominal sum if that were appropriate. We must make sure that that point is understood as well.
	We are concerned with the approval by affirmative resolution in the House of Lords of an order prescribing the circumstances and procedures which should govern the variation of periodical payments for future loss in personal injury cases. The issues surrounding the variation of periodical payments were extensively debated in both Houses during the passage of the Courts Act 2003. I hope that noble Lords will agree that Ministers have listened carefully to the points that have been made—which have great force, there is no question about that—and have given certain undertakings about what the order would contain which are now reflected in the draft order; indeed, noble Lords opposite have generously acknowledged that.
	The order provides that a court may provide that an order for periodical payments may be varied only if it is proved or admitted that there is a chance that at some definite or indefinite time in the future the claimant will, as a result of an act or omission which gave rise to the course of action, develop a serious disease or suffer a serious deterioration, or would enjoy some significant improvement, possibly even to the extent of full improvement, in the physical or mental condition where that condition had been adversely affected as a result of the act or omission. I believe that that is the fair and balanced approach, and the House too seems to have agreed with that approach, which I greatly appreciate. I hope that noble Lords feel that we have fulfilled the commitments we made and I commend the order.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Primary Medical Services (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2004

Lord Warner: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14 September be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Warner: My Lords, the Primary Medical Services (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 introduced a range of measures required to implement in Northern Ireland the new GP contract that had been agreed for the whole of the United Kingdom between the General Practitioners Committee of the British Medical Association and the NHS Confederation. Similar measures have been made in England and Wales by the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003, and in Scotland by the Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Order 2004.
	Following the implementation of the Primary Medical Services (Northern Ireland) Order, it has been necessary to make a number of consequential amendments to other legislation. Those amendments needed for Northern Ireland only have been made by Northern Ireland statutory rules. However, due to restrictions on the competence of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in Northern Ireland, amendments to legislation which need to extend beyond Northern Ireland must be made by Order in Council following approval of the draft order by both Houses of Parliament. That is why this short and, I hope, uncontentious order is before the House today.
	The Primary Medical Services (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2004, which we are considering today, makes a number of necessary technical but relatively minor amendments to the Medical Act 1983 and to three statutory instruments. These are the Medicines (Pharmacy and General Sale—Exemption Order 1980, the Prescription Only Medicines (Human Use) Order 1997 and the General and Specialist Medical Practice (Education, Training and Qualifications) Order 2003.
	Most of the amendments are simply to replace references to the old, pre-April 2004 general medical services in Part VI of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order with references to the new wider term, "primary medical services".
	The one exception to this is the amendments found at paragraph 4(2)(b) and (4)(b) of the Schedule to the draft order. These amendments remove two paragraphs which imposed restrictions on the right to practise of certain categories of GPs to be included in the GP register by virtue of an acquired right to practise. Those restrictions are no longer necessary in the 2003 order, as they have been replaced as appropriate by restrictions in the legislation relating to the GP contract that deals with conditions for contractors and the qualifications required by performers.
	My colleague the Minister of State for Health, John Hutton, has made the following statement on the compatibility of the order with the European Convention on Human Rights:
	"In my view, the provisions of the Primary Medical Services (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2004 are compatible with the convention rights".
	I beg to move.
	Moved, That the order laid before the House on 14 September be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Warner.)

Earl Attlee: My Lords, it is a pleasure to debate health matters with the noble Lord, Lord Warner, for the first time. Sadly, however, it will not be a usual occurrence. I am grateful for the noble Lord's explanation, and I am content with the order.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I too welcome the debate on this Northern Ireland order. We debated and passed the primary medical services order in January. As the noble Lord reminded us, it was uncontroversial and replicated measures being introduced in England and Wales by Part 4 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003. The main provision of the order concerned new GP contracts, which we have strongly supported. However, concerns were expressed about the provision of out of hours services. I am finding it hard to work out how substantially different this order is from the one we passed in January. Perhaps the noble Lord will help me on that point.
	I think that it is intended that the responsibility for providing services during these hours will transfer to boards as part of their new statutory duties, but we still do not know how this is going to work and what progress might have been made. Let me refer the Minister to the Commons debate on this subject in the Second Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Northern Ireland Office, Angela Smith, said:
	"the boards tell me they are confident that by 1 January 2005 they will be able to provide an adequate service".
	My noble friend in another place, Lembit Öpik, said that,
	"there was a perceived deterioration in service because there were too few doctors trying to do the job in too wide an area".
	In reply, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said:
	"If any problems are brought to my attention, we will do everything that we can to ensure proper service.".—[Official Report, Commons, Second Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 19/10/04; col. 8.]
	I should be grateful if the Minister would define the words "adequate" and "proper service".
	Has any further work been done on analysing possible problems in the light of the experience that has been gained in England and Wales concerning the sparsity factor, transportation to the nearest hospital A&E department or even walk-in facilities—if, indeed, these are ever proposed by the boards?
	We on these Benches support the order but I would be grateful if the Minister could reply to those questions.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I listened carefully as the Minister presented the order; I am afraid that it is far too technical for a simple old village schoolmaster to understand. However, I would not like to miss the opportunity at least to comment on our health services in Northern Ireland in general terms and to ask the Minister one or two questions.
	Obviously I am interested in the state of the health services in Northern Ireland. In my opinion—be it erroneous or otherwise—what was the best regional health service in the United Kingdom 15 or 20 years ago has deteriorated to be among the poorest. None the less, one of the elements that has sustained us over the period has been the productivity and local knowledge of our general practitioners.
	We who live in rural areas are perhaps more aware of this than those who live in the larger conurbations, but there is no doubt that primary healthcare appears to have come under considerable pressure. I wonder whether that is why—perhaps the Minister will tell me otherwise—there appears to be some difficulty in implementing the changes to GP contracts in Northern Ireland at the moment.
	I do not suppose that the Minister will wish to deal today with my next question, but I will very briefly ask it. Some of the confusion, chaos and mismanagement of our acute hospital services, their rationalisation at inopportune times and absence of proper planning has led to that aspect of healthcare literally gobbling up financial resources that could be more usefully employed in the primary healthcare sector. I do not wish to speak at too great a length—as I said, I am not technically competent to do so—but how will GPs now be able to operate effectively out-of-hours GP services in rural areas and, indeed, in Northern Ireland as a whole?
	As to chronic and non-hospitalised patients, is there likely to be a more rapid introduction than we have seen so far of nurse practitioners who are qualified to refer patients and to deal with them in a way that relieves the pressure on our GPs and perhaps allows them to utilise their time more efficiently?
	I promised that I would not speak at any great length. I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute. I accept what the Minister said in regard to the benefits that the order is intended to bring to Northern Ireland.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I am grateful for the support offered by noble Lords in this area. I am sure that my exchanges on health with the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, will probably be limited in number, but I am grateful for that on this occasion.
	In terms of the difference between this and the previous order, this order only changes some terminology consequential upon the service changes in the previous order. It does not in any way modify the service delivery arrangements that were specified in the previous order; it simply makes consequential changes to some of the legislation which had to be changed through this mechanism because it was outwith the competence of the Northern Ireland authorities to do so. So the changes are purely technical.
	On the wider issues, there has been a lot of public debate about the changes in the out-of-hours responsibility. We should be clear that that transfer of responsibility to primary care trusts and their Northern Ireland equivalents is about making those trusts responsible for ensuring that there are proper out-of-hours arrangements. It lifts that responsibility from individual GPs. Those changes will, we think, improve the quality of life for GPs and the recruitment and retention to general practice as well as making it clear that there is a public body with responsibility for ensuring that out-of-hours services are available.
	In addition, on 14 October, we introduced the new national quality requirements which, from 1 January 2005, all providers of out-of-hours services will have to meet. So there is a quality control mechanism for ensuring that those changes are introduced against agreed standards.
	The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, raised a number of issues around services in Northern Ireland. I do not have detailed knowledge of the Northern Ireland healthcare system and how it is working. I shall make sure that my colleague, Angela Smith, who has responsibilities in this area, reads Hansard, understands the noble Lord's concerns and considers whether she can do anything to reassure him on this issue.
	I have a couple of general points in response to the noble Lord. I know from my own experience over many years in the health field that there is a continuing debate about whether we have got right the balance in terms of resources and priorities between primary care, secondary care and tertiary care. These are not easy judgments to make; successive governments under different administrations have had to wrestle with that and will no doubt have to wrestle with it in the future. However, we are seeing a real attempt to improve the quality of primary care; a new contract and new arrangements will ensure that quality.
	In terms of GPs in rural areas, the changes we are making mean that it is the PCT's responsibility to ensure that there are good out-of-hours services wherever people live, whether in rural or urban areas. It is certainly true that nurse practitioners have been expanding their activities in general practice across the UK. One would expect that to continue, because it relieves GPs of doing things which can be done by the nurse practitioners perfectly satisfactorily and which many patients welcome.
	I have tried to answer the points raised by noble Lords. I hope that with those assurances, we can agree the order.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	(The Sitting was suspended from 8.18 to 8.30 p.m.)

Hunting Bill

House again in Committee.
	Clause 5 [Hare coursing]:

Baroness Golding: moved Amendment No. 5:
	Page 2, line 3, leave out "a" and insert "an unregistered"

Baroness Golding: In moving Amendment No. 5, I shall speak to the other amendments in the group. The amendments relate to hare coursing. Amendments Nos. 5 to 9 all leave out "a" and insert "an unregistered", so that Clause 5 would read:
	"A person commits an offence if he . . . participates in a hare coursing event . . . attends an unregistered hare coursing event . . . knowingly facilitates an unregistered hare coursing event, or . . . permits land which belongs to him to be used for the purpose of an unregistered hare coursing event . . . Each of the following persons commits an offence if a dog participates in an unregistered hare coursing event".
	Amendment No. 50 would insert,
	"a person engages or participates in a hare coursing event".
	Amendment No. 87 is consequential on that amendment in the Long Title of the Bill.
	These clauses underline the principle of registration which the Committee overwhelmingly voted for earlier this evening. It has been agreed that hunting should be put under the control of a registrar; in other words, it is up to the registrar with, one hopes, the help of a hunting tribunal, to decide whether hunting should take place under regulation or, alternatively, whether it should be banned.
	We must now decide whether hunting of some animals should be banned without consulting the registrar. These clauses deal with hare coursing. I submit that we cannot have it both ways: either the registrar is a fit person to rule on animal welfare, on utility and least suffering for all wild animals, or he is not. We should not pick and choose; we have appointed a registrar to do a job, we should give him our total support to do it, and we should allow hare coursing to come under the registrar. I beg to move.

Lord Eden of Winton: I find this a very difficult issue on which to come to a decision. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, referred to hare coursing in his Second Reading speech, when he said:
	"The welfare arguments against coursing are probably the clearest of all, as population control plays no part. But I have a residual worry that a ban on coursing would not eliminate the activity but would merely result in diversion into other forms of coursing".—[Official Report, 12/10/04; col. 145.]
	Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, did not develop his case regarding what he had in mind when he referred to "other forms of coursing". I wonder whether the noble Baroness, Lady Golding, who spoke to this group of amendments, is able to shed light on that as it would certainly have an influence on the way in which I approach this subject.
	I emphasise that we are talking about coursing and that we are not discussing beagling. Beagling has quite different connotations and is quite another activity, which in my view should be facilitated. However, coursing troubles me because of what was referred to on the clause stand part debate; namely, the incidence of illegal coursing activity on land, estates and properties when the owner in question has not given consent for that. That is a very troublesome activity. I have been given evidence of the kind of coercion and excessive threatening behaviour which accompanies that activity, which in my view should not be countenanced at all.
	I believe that a national body oversees coursing. I should have thought that an activity such as coursing was a prime example of an activity where registration and licensing should be imposed. There ought to be clearly defined rules of conduct. Coursing should be allowed to take place within certain clearly prescribed regulations. Perhaps that happens already, but as I have indicated—I hope for long enough—I am totally confused by this whole subject. I find it a very difficult one to fit into the context of hunting. It does not appeal to me as hunting as such, but none the less it is an activity in the country which deserves careful scrutiny and ought to be regulated properly.

Lord Best: In supporting this amendment I wish to make some comments that might be helpful to those of your Lordships who have not made up their minds on coursing. This amendment's effect would be to treat hare coursing in the same way as fox hunting, beagling and so on. Coursing would be subject to the same tests, and only if registered would it be able to continue.
	If the amendment is not carried, hare coursing will be singled out for very special treatment. Irrespective of the arrangements for hunting, it would be the subject of an immediate ban. I confess that I have come very late to any knowledge of coursing, but I have now gained an understanding of it and my view is that a grave injustice would be done if hare coursing were regarded as so heinous a pursuit that draconian measures must be taken to close it down immediately.
	When the previous version of the Hunting Bill was debated in your Lordships' House I felt compelled to speak up for coursing because I had been, with some trepidation, to two coursing meetings. I discovered there to my astonishment that my ideas about coursing were wildly wrong. First, I discovered that my understanding that the object was for hares to be chased and then killed by greyhounds was very wide of the mark. The objective, it turned out, was not to kill or harm a hare. The two greyhounds, coursing dogs, that race in each heat get no points for catching or killing a hare. They are tested on their speed and agility, being released by the slipper when the hare has run a hundred metres past him. I saw no hares killed at those two meetings. Subsequently my knowledge has increased and I now know that some hares are killed, and these are the facts. There were 1,380 occasions when coursing dogs at the regulated official meetings went after hares last year, and 126 hares were caught. That compares to thousands that are shot each year.
	My second discovery was that the hares involved were not, as I thought, captured earlier and then taken to the coursing meeting to be released. That was entirely misguided. The hares are born and bred in the wild. For three or four coursing meetings each year, a big circle of beaters channels them to the field where the coursing dogs are. The hares are likely to enjoy the best possible conditions. Wherever there is coursing, there are many more and healthier brown hare populations. In those parts of north Yorkshire, East Anglia or wherever regulated coursing takes place under National Coursing Club rules, the farmers and landowners create an environment in which hares will prosper. That requires some sacrifices in modern farming practice. More land is set aside. Grass cannot be cut for silage, as that would happen in May, when the leverets lie low in the field and would be killed by the silage making. Poisoned slug pellets cannot be put down. Hedges, copses and grass verges are extended.
	Moreover, in terms of enhancing the lives of hares rather than taking them, coursing involves rather more than conservation. It also protects the hare populations from the most vicious of their predators—the illegal coursing poachers, to whom the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, referred. They bring their lurchers and greyhounds to engage in a truly cruel free-for-all. The rules are simple: kill, kill, kill. It is a violent and aggressive sport. Bets are placed on which dog will kill the most hares. But hares enjoy protection on the land where organised coursing takes place and brings in an income from the participants who come to the coursing meetings. Trouble is taken to lock gates, create obstacles for intruders, and patrol the farmland. The nightmare scenario is legal coursing being unilaterally banned, with no one then paid to protect hares. If coursing is banned, those on whose land there are good stocks of hares would be well advised to shoot them as self-protection from highly undesirable elements trespassing on their land, creating damage and killing the hares.
	I declare a new interest. My wife has kindly bought me a share in a greyhound puppy which I hope one day to see run. Meanwhile, I have come to the firm view that a grave injustice could be done, based on the kind of deep-seated ignorance of what modern-day, regulated and organised coursing consists of—ignorance that I displayed until recently. I cannot for the life of me see that coursing is so very different from beagling, which is also involved in hare conservation but accounts for 1,650 hares killed each year, compared with 126 for coursing.
	I recognise that hare coursing is a sport, like fishing and shooting. However, shooting hares—it will be the fate of so many if they are not conserved for coursing—means that 25 per cent of those shot will be wounded and suffer a prolonged death. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, mentioned that in his report. The exponents of coursing clearly do a good deal for the countryside, as well as providing a major social occasion for people in pretty remote rural areas, many of whom cannot afford many other pleasures in life. It seems grossly unfair for the activity to be condemned on the basis of near-universal ignorance of what today's coursing comprises.
	The amendment would see hare coursing taking its chances to be assessed alongside the likes of fox hunting. Only if it stands the test of that scrutiny would it continue. The Committee should give organised coursing the chance to seek registration and prove its case.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I found the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Best, very interesting and really rather extraordinary. The mood of the great debate we had earlier today was on compromise—compromise between the House and the other place, possibly with the Government holding the ring in some way. On the issue of hare coursing there is absolutely no room for compromise whatever. I think that the Committee must realise that if it were to pass these amendments this evening, the other place would rightly conclude that this House has no interest in coming to a compromise on the Bill as a whole. The House of Commons has passed Motions, Private Members' Bills and other resolutions on the issue of banning hare coursing continuously since 1970. When the Hunting Bill came before them on the most recent occasion, and on earlier occasions, the votes on the issue have all been absolutely overwhelming.
	This is the one issue on which there is universal public support for a ban. It is regarded as quite different from the fox hunting debate. The argument for fox hunting, which is not one that I agree with, was to do with keeping down numbers. There is no argument about keeping down the numbers of hares. The hare species is the subject of a biodiversity programme, and every attempt is being made to increase the numbers because, in some parts of the country, it is endangered.

Viscount Ullswater: The noble Lord has expressed his view about what the House of Commons has said. As far as I am concerned, I do not believe that the House of Lords has had an opportunity to express its view about coursing. Would he deny the House of Lords an opportunity to express its view?

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: Of course I would not. Indeed, the House of Lords expressed its view on hare coursing on 28 October 2003, when it voted by 129 to 59 to remove Clause 5 from the Bill. We debated hare coursing at great length a year ago. I remember making a speech, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, followed me. We took completely contrary lines, but we debated this. On that occasion, we lost.
	The effect of that vote to delete Clause 5 was to continue hare coursing unlicensed and unregistered. I suppose that, in that sense at least, the amendment which my noble friend moved earlier represents just a tiny step forward. I assume that one of the amendment's consequences is that unregistered coursing—the sort of coursing to which the noble Lord, Lord Best, referred—will be made illegal. My feeling is that, because coursing itself is essentially cruel—it is killing for sport, killing for gambling, killing for fun—it is inconceivable that we should continue to allow it to happen.
	It is not the case that the National Coursing Club does not provide any points for a kill. I am advised that it provides for one point to be given for a kill provided that it is through superior skill. The noble Lord made another assertion that he may wish to correct.

Baroness Mallalieu: Will the noble Lord tell us who has given him the information that one point is awarded for a kill? I understand that that is not so.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I have been given this briefing by people who are taking a very close interest in the Bill, in the same way as the noble Lord, Lord Best, was making his assertions.

Baroness Byford: As the noble Lord will see, the noble Baroness wishes to come back. And noble Lords are quite rightly asking, "Who?".

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: The answer is that the information has come from the RSPCA. I am very happy to quote it in this debate.
	The other point that needs to be borne in mind is that, in giving evidence to the Burns inquiry, the National Coursing Club made it quite clear that eight coursing clubs had netted and moved hares around the country for coursing. It is not true that they are all local hares that just happen to be in the fields where the courses are taking place. There is a conscious effort to move them from one part of the country to other parts of the country, particularly from Norfolk to the estates of Lord Leverhulme, where the Waterloo Cup is held. That strikes me as a cynical and very cruel practice.
	I very much hope that your Lordships will reject these amendments. There is extreme cruelty involved in this sport. The Burns committee found no grounds whatever for justifying the sport's continued existence. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, said that there was little or no need to control overall hare numbers and that hare running and coursing were carried out essentially for recreational purposes. So hare coursing is cruel and there is no reason, other than for sport, for it to be allowed to continue.
	I shall end by quoting one of the witnesses at the Waterloo Cup in 2003, who talked to the Daily Mirror after the experience.

Lord Burnham: My Lords—

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: This was someone who was at the Waterloo Cup and no one has denied that it happened. Perhaps I may read the quotation.
	"It's not illegal but it is immoral. One day I sat down and thought about it and I just couldn't do it any more.
	"The captured hares are released on to land that is unfamiliar to them, they don't have any runs and they're so scared it's impossible for them to find an escape route. It's like me being taken from my house, being blindfolded, driven a hundred miles away and then dumped, being chased".
	That strikes me as being a barbaric sport which there is no need for us to continue.

Lord Denham: The noble Lord has quoted all manner of things which are really not the case. He says that the hares are released on to ground that is unfamiliar to them. It is one of the rules of the National Coursing Club that no hare shall be moved at least six months before coursing takes place on that piece of ground. So the hare is familiar with that piece of ground in the natural course of events.

Baroness Mallalieu: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord whether he has ever taken the trouble to attend any hare coursing event.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: No, I have not, and I really would not wish to, but I have read enough about hare coursing events to be able to reach a view and to express to your Lordships my complete aversion to that barbaric activity.

Lord Donoughue: In speaking to the amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 6 to 9, 50 and 87, which are also in my name. In defence of my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester, he has every right to speak from total ignorance and lack of experience regarding this subject. In this House we should tolerate that, because it is not an unfamiliar experience. I also note that this is one more issue that, when it comes to compromise, all the compromises have to come from one side. Once more we are told that there is no compromise from the other side.
	The amendment alters the Bill to allow coursing events to be subject to the two tests of utility and least suffering, and hence allows them to apply for registration. It prohibits unregistered hare coursing. I should point out to my noble friend Lord Faulkner that unregistered hare coursing, which is an appalling cause of cruelty and disorder in much of the countryside, makes up the vast majority of sport concerned with hares. The amendment deals with that.
	Personal opinions regarding hare coursing differ greatly and my noble friend has expressed his view, while others will express theirs. I have previously stated in this House that I am not a great supporter. In fact, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Best, and very much like my noble friend Lord Faulkner, I am fairly ignorant of the sport—as are some of my colleagues who are not well informed on hunting with dogs. I believe that ignorance and prejudice, which I may have on this issue, should not be the basis for banning an activity. I am content that the issue of coursing, while I do not support it, should be subject to the expert judgment of the proposed registration process and based on principles and evidence.
	It may be the case that, under the process of rational scrutiny which we are suggesting, coursing is not registered or allowed and is banned. I would be content with that outcome if it had been the result of a proper process of scrutiny and evidence. These issues should not be decided by emotive prejudice. That is why I support the amendment. It provides a legal process by which hare coursing, along with all other such country activities, may or may not be permitted. We should show faith in that process. It is a process of regulation; a process of registration, tests and principles; a process which the Committee overwhelmingly supported today.

Lord Eden of Winton: Since we are debating the Hunting Bill, and coursing is not hunting, is there not a very strong case for arguing that matters affecting coursing should be taken under another Bill that deals with animal welfare?

Lord Donoughue: I have sympathy with the noble Lord because this whole area should be subject to a proper animal welfare Bill. As the Committee may be aware, I have introduced a Private Member's Bill that does exactly that. If one links that with the Government's proposed animal welfare Bill, one could deal with all these issues in a rational way that is based on evidence. But that is not the instinct of some people, mainly in my party, in the House of Commons and of just a few noble Lords, as we heard today, in this Committee. I sympathise with the noble Lord's view, but that is not the reality with which we have to deal.
	Those who oppose submitting hare coursing to the tests and the registration process are rejecting or undermining that process. My noble friend Lord Faulkner may tell us otherwise, but they are apparently unwilling to expose their views to rational scrutiny and evidence. Surely if they are convinced not merely that their instincts lean that way, but that they are right and that the evidence points to it, they should be willing to go through that process in absolute confidence that an activity will be banned under it.
	The approach of the amendment is to apply rational scrutiny and evidence. It provides that all activities and animals be treated equally under the law. That might normally be an instinct towards which Members of my party incline, since we have normally supported treating human beings equally under the law, but the law should not pick out certain activities and certain animals for discriminatory treatment. The amendment would leave to this process and the evidence before it the determination of which activities are permitted and which are banned.
	As one who does not support hare coursing, I strongly support the amendment and recommend that those who have concerns about coursing too—maybe based on evidence; maybe, unlike mine and those of my noble friend Lord Faulkner, based on ignorance and no experience—should be willing to submit to this process, which will determine those activities which will be permitted and those which should be banned. I support the amendment.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I shall be very surprised if what I am about to say changes anyone's mind—in fact, I am certain that it will not. However, I am amazed that Members of the Committee who feel strongly that hunting should continue should have any intention of sending the Bill back to the House of Commons with hare coursing included. That would be a red rag to a bull; it is not in the spirit of compromise, and it is entirely irrational.
	What offends me most is not the question of hunting hares or hare coursing; it is the fact that including it in the Bill would bring this House into disrepute. I know that noble Lords who are pro-coursing gave the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, a hard time and I am sure that they will do the same to me. Nevertheless, I believe that it would show that the House of Lords was unwilling to compromise, and I feel very strongly about that. Hare coursing has no place in the Bill. It is a Bill about hunting and, because it is a Bill about hunting, it is a difficult place to consider anything carried out as a sport.
	I want to address the issues of conservation which were prayed in aid of continuing coursing. The Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group has made a useful analysis of the decline of the brown hare over the years. Mostly, it comes down to modern agricultural practices, and the group has listed the things that would reverse the decline in hare numbers, which now seem to have stabilised. None of the items listed will come as a surprise to the Committee. They include: keeping a wide grass strip; broadening the bottom of hedges; and having a wide food source for hares, which do not carry much body fat and so need a regular food source.
	I do not think we can say that hare coursing is necessary in order to keep up hare numbers. The types of practice that will come about as part of CAP reform and the types of practice that will encourage more skylarks, and so on, are also likely to encourage more hares.
	Is continuing with legal hare coursing likely to prevent illegal coursing or, at least, to have an impact on it? I do not believe that it will. Illegal coursing is horrendous and is an extremely difficult problem which needs to be tackled vigorously, but continuing with legal coursing will not in any way begin to address the issue.
	I listened with great interest to the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Best, who made some good points. Nevertheless, I believe that hare coursing is a sport and that it is not practised in order to control hare numbers. We have not heard any arguments to the effect that that form of sport is acceptable in relation to any other animal, and therefore I do not believe that it is supportable. Further than that, I believe that we may as well write off the rest of the days that we are to spend in Committee, Report and Third Reading if noble Lords are minded to vote in favour of putting hare coursing back into the Bill. If they do so, the compromise will be seen to have failed completely.

Lord Denham: I hope that the Committee will be aware that competitive coursing is the only field sport that has been examined in depth and given a clean bill of health by a Select Committee of the House. The Hare Coursing Bill 1975 was brought from the House of Commons and given a Second Reading in this House on 7 November 1975. It was then very properly withdrawn by the government of the day due to lack of time and, in the next Parliament, was introduced as a House of Lords Bill and given a First and Second Reading on 16 December 1975.
	The Bill was thereupon referred to a House of Lords Select Committee of the type that can hear evidence, go about the countryside and examine what it is talking about. The late, very distinguished public servant Lord Trevelyan was in the chair. One of the members was the late Lord Cranbrook, a natural history expert of world renown. The committee heard evidence from all interested parties, attended two separate coursing meetings in Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire and then produced their report. The report concluded that,
	"The Bill is not a suitable instrument for reducing the suffering of hares. The welfare of the hare would not be appreciably affected by it, since the amount of physical suffering caused by competitive coursing is probably less than 1 per cent of the amount caused by hare shooting and non-competitive coursing".
	After that, the Government dropped the hare coursing Bill. That was nearly 30 years ago. The rules maintained by the National Coursing Club are even stricter now than then, but all I would ask is that the National Coursing Club should at least be given the opportunity to put its case among other field sports before the registrar is appointed under this Bill.

Baroness Mallalieu: I usually agree with 90 per cent of what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, says, but on this occasion I am in the 10 per cent zone. The advice that I hope the Committee will take on the approach to be adopted on this Bill is that given to the Committee earlier by the noble Lord, Lord King, when he said that we should try to do what we believe is right.
	I hope that our earlier vote today is an indication that we want to try to send to the other place a fair Bill, rather than one that gives vent to personal prejudices. That is the problem with the Bill that has come to this Committee. In my submission, whatever one's personal views on hare coursing—I do not happen to share those of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner—it must be right that the same test is applied to this sport as to the others with which the Committee is concerned. Hare coursing is a minority sport within a minority and, therefore, we must be particularly careful to ensure that that minority's interests are treated with the same degree of care as others.
	When he considered this matter, Alun Michael said that the matter must be determined on principle and evidence and not on personal distaste. With respect, I suggest that those are the words that we should remember now. I urge those who have personal distaste, whether they have investigated the matter or not, to adopt that principle and be prepared to submit hare coursing to the test devised by Alun Michael. If it does not meet those tests, as some noble Lords have indicated they do not believe it will, organised hare coursing will not receive registration and will, no doubt, cease.
	I believe that Mr Alun Michael's view was that hare coursing would not pass the tests that he set. You will recall that the first of those tests was that of utility. I anticipate that at a later stage we shall come to the test of utility, which at the moment is very narrowly drafted to deal only with pest control. I anticipate that the Committee will consider whether it should be expanded to include wildlife management. I hope that it will. It is certainly right that if pest control is the test, hare coursing would not make the cut. I do not believe that anyone at the National Coursing Club would suggest that that was so.
	If wildlife management were included at least there would be a case—they would say a strong one—for the registrar to consider. I am not in a position to say whether it is one that would find favour or not, but those of us who were fortunate enough a couple of days ago to attend a presentation given in this House heard from a keeper on an estate of 2,000 acres in Norfolk on which there are an estimated 800 hares. He was doing all the things that noble Lords have said should be done to improve and to increase the hare population. He said that if coursing went, because that was a coursing estate, the farming policy would change in such a way that he could not possibly continue to maintain that number and that there would undoubtedly be a substantial decrease. Indeed, I have heard it said on reliable evidence that some 30,000 hares are likely to be shot in the event of coursing being stopped because landowners would be anxious to avoid the undoubted increase in illegal coursing which would take place.
	I say to my noble friend Lord Faulkner that, if the hare coursing proposals in the Bill as we have received it were to find favour and to reach the statute book, it is the view of many of those who have studied this subject that we could kiss goodbye to the Government's biodiversity programme. The stable hare numbers we have now achieved would plummet.
	Mr Michael thought that hare coursing might not meet the test of "least suffering". That could be so. The noble Lord, Lord Best, said that one hare in 10 is killed in the course of a coursing event. That figure has to be looked at against the research done by Dr Douglas Wise, a lecturer in animal husbandry at Cambridge University, who has concluded that when hares are shot some 25 per cent are wounded, of which approximately half are not retrieved. That is an alarming statistic.
	I have never been on a shoot where hares were shot, but those who have tell me that it is not a pleasant experience. If that really is the figure—and there seems to be considerable evidence for it—what we are doing is perhaps saving the lives of 126 hares a year and sacrificing a great many more which will be killed or wounded and suffer lingering death. When one looks at the "least suffering" test, I am not sure that there is not an argument for a registrar to consider.
	I am not sure either that threats are the best way to achieve good, sustainable legislation. We are told that there is no point in our even considering this legislation because the Commons will regard it as provocative. I feel that that would be an unwise approach to adopt. We have to look at each issue on its merits.
	We have also to look—and I am bound to say that I have—at the Bill that we have been presented with. The definition of a hare coursing event is so tightly drawn that the most minute changes to the rules of the National Coursing Club would take it outside the definition contained in the Bill. When I look at Schedule 1 "Exempt Hunting", I can see no reason why people should not walk across a field with two greyhounds, lurchers, salukis or whatever they choose and flush hares in the field, provided that at the end of the day there is somebody with a gun who can try to shoot.
	We are told that control of illegal hare coursing is going to be improved by this proposal. I cannot see how that can possibly be. My understanding is that the people who engage in illegal hare coursing are not likely to be making applications for licences. When tackled, the Bill provides them with the clearest possible defence that they were out trying to catch rabbits. At the moment that defence is not open to them when they are charged with trespass.
	Illegal coursing, or poaching as it is properly called, is a curse in many parts of the country. But it cannot be right to go for the law abiding because you cannot catch the law breakers. There was a very valuable adjournment debate in another place which Mr Robert Jackson introduced. A number of helpful proposals were made to the Government for steps that could be taken to try to curb illegal hare coursing; one involved the confiscation of vehicles that were used. If the Government's intention really is to tackle illegal coursing, those sorts of proposals should be coming before us as legislation. But they are not present in this Bill. Indeed, I think that the Bill provides some incentives and I very much fear that it would lead to an increase in illegal coursing.
	For all those reasons, I hope that noble Lords who have reservations about hare coursing—I know that there are many on all sides of this House—will take the trouble to find out more before they vote to inflict a direct ban. In any event, I hope that they will take the view at this stage that the right course would be to accept what every side said at Portcullis House. I wish to correct the remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, at the outset of our discussions on the Bill, that there was no agreement at Portcullis House. I sat through every word of the evidence on all three days. The one thing on which every witness from each side agreed was that no distinction should be made as between different species; all animals should be treated the same.
	That is the principle that I hope we will apply to this amendment—fair treatment right across the board. If hare coursing cannot make the cut, it will go. I appreciate that some feel strongly that hare coursing should stop. If they are right, they will get their way, but in a way that we can all see is just and fair. If we want lasting legislation that will stand the test of time, it must be fair, even for a minority within a minority.

The Earl of Caithness: I agree with the observation of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, that hare coursing has no place in this Bill. However, it is in the Bill at the Government's behest, and it would be wrong of us not to debate it in our usual fashion.
	I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. I have been given bad, inaccurate briefs in my time. One takes them with the best of intentions but, on reading them in the House, one finds them to be totally wrong. Unfortunately, the noble Lord slipped from his usual high standard of accuracy tonight, in at least three ways.
	Clause 5 is a poachers' charter, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, has just explained. There is a wide new exemption under Schedule 1 that will enable anybody walking over heathland with their dogs to escape prosecution because they have a new defence that says they can hunt rabbits. They will say to the police, "We were hunting rabbits. I am sorry; my greyhounds—or lurchers—happened to come across a hare. What could I do? I am perfectly entitled to hunt rabbits; it was a genuine mistake". Clause 5 will increase considerably the amount of poaching in this country and give a new excuse and encouragement to those who carry out that trade.
	As my noble friend Lord Astor said earlier, there is a threat to owners. When I was a land agent in Oxfordshire, one of the tenant farmers for whom I was responsible had his hay barn burnt down on more than one occasion because he had tried to stop illegal poaching. That is only one small example of where harassment comes in. It was not, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said in reply to my noble friend, as simple as a threat; it is a much more insidious, subtle threat that such people impose on farmers and landowners. It is much more difficult for landowners and the police to handle such threats.
	I have no doubt that, if hare coursing were stopped in England and Wales, not only would hare numbers be reduced, but the biodiversity programme that the Government are pushing forward would be severely damaged. Furthermore, the diversity of wildlife encouraged by those who manage their property for hares will also be diminished. One need only talk to the RSPB and the National Heritage authorities to learn from wardens that, where hares are managed on coursing estates, there is a considerable increase in wildlife and its diversity.
	I used to know quite well the shooting area of Norfolk; I also know the coursing area quite well. There is a substantial difference in the amount of natural wildlife in the two parts of Norfolk. As the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, one of the keepers of that coursing land has told us that the hare population will have to be shot in order to stop illegal poaching in the future. If the hare population is shot and the farm is no longer managed for hares, all other species will suffer, including protected species.
	We also heard from a farmer in Yorkshire who farms 800 acres. He extends all his set-aside and makes a conscious effort to improve the wildlife for the sake of the hare. He also said that the hares would have to be severely reduced on his land if coursing were banned. There is no question that if a ban on hare coursing is approved by Parliament, biodiversity and wildlife will suffer.
	I return to my main point of animal welfare. Hare coursing that is run under the strict rules of the National Coursing Club is of benefit to the hare. Where coursing is properly managed, it has led to a huge increase in the number of hares. If that is stopped, illegal hare coursing and poaching will increase, which could be only to the detriment of all wildlife.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: In a debate like this, we all use the views with which we want to agree. I have listened carefully to today's debate. I rise because I have attended hare coursing. In 1979, I was the Labour candidate for Bury St Edmunds. Members of the Committee who know Bury St Edmunds will realise that I did not have much hope of winning the seat.
	During the period in which I was a candidate, I was invited by a Newmarket racehorse owner to attend hare coursing. As I did not know anything about it, I felt that I ought to go along, which I did. I have to say immediately that it was not as bad as I had thought it would be. However, it was not a happy afternoon. Three of the hares were—to put it mildly—badly mauled. I did not really see a sport on this occasion; I did not feel that the hare had very much chance. That was before 1979: hare coursing may well be a great deal better now. I have listened carefully to what has been said. But, at that time, I was not impressed with hare coursing.
	Having said that, obviously, unregistered hare coursing is quite appalling and there is a need for control, on which I think that there has been agreement around the Committee. That is one of my points, which I hope expresses distaste rather than prejudice.
	I understand the feelings of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, on these issues. We keep coming back to something that is bothering me greatly, which also arose in the previous debate about fox hunting. A noble Lord opposite threw down the gauntlet, which I did not take up, asking, "Well, if you are not going to fox hunt, how are you going to control?".
	My first point on that is that the hunts are not very good at controlling anyway because only 6 per cent of the foxes are killed by the hunts. My second point is—I shall come back to hares in a moment—that shooting foxes is a great deal better than running them to the ground by the hunt. Earlier, I heard about shooting—

Lord Eden of Winton: When the noble Baroness talks about shooting foxes, does she mean shooting with a shotgun or does she mean lamping and shooting with a rifle?

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: I refer to both methods, but I shall come on to shooting with a shotgun in a moment. However, I also agree with lamping. I know that there have been two cases recently where people have been shot, but as someone who comes from the countryside, I have known people who have shot each other inadvertently when out shooting pheasant and so forth.
	I listened carefully to the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Best, about the control of hares, and I accept totally that control is necessary, as it is for foxes—which is why I am in favour of shooting them. But we have heard during the debate that the kind of people living in the countryside whom I have known over the years and who own guns have apparently become cross-eyed and cannot hit the target they are aiming at.
	I am almost 64 years old and for the past 60 years I have been aware of people in the countryside shooting. They have shot rooks, blackbirds, hares, rabbits, crows, rats and foxes, and they have shot them accurately. However, we keep hearing the argument that shooting is no longer any good because so many people seem to miss these days. They cannot shoot accurately any more. I am beginning to feel that I must be living in a different countryside, even though I have lived there for 64 years minus one eight-year period.
	I cannot accept, as I did not earlier, that shooting is not a viable alternative in relation to hares. We do not need hare coursing in this country because they can be quite adequately controlled by shooting.

Viscount Ullswater: I support the amendments. Perhaps I should start by declaring an interest in that my wife is a member of two whippet coursing clubs. I admit that coursing is a recreational sport, but it plays an important part in hare conservation. The noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, talked about shooting, which is also a recreational sport. So we are comparing like with like. The Game Conservancy Trust confirms a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Best,
	"that estates where coursing is practised maintain hare stocks at some of the highest levels in the country".
	The Burns report—the report of the poor noble Lord, Lord Burns, has been almost chucked to one side, but I want to repeat one or two points—concludes on page 120 at paragraph 6.69 that,
	"In the event of a ban on hunting and coursing hares, it seems likely that a few more would be shot than at present. There are concerns about the welfare implications of shooting hares because of wounding rates".
	My noble friend Lord Denham referred to the House of Lords Select Committee that examined the hare coursing Bill introduced in 1975, and the Burns report draws attention to its report.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, mentioned that wounding rates of 25 to 30 per cent had been reported, with a significant proportion of those injured not being retrieved at the end of the day. In any test of cruelty, it would seem that the gun is lower in order than the quick death from a coursing greyhound or whippet. When hares escape, they escape unhurt.
	The Burns report uses a phrase in paragraph 6.67 which has often been repeated in this House:
	"being killed by hounds seriously compromises the welfare of the hare".
	That is misleading. The alternative of shooting also seriously compromises the welfare of the hare, while wounding can lead to a prolonged compromise of the welfare of the hare before it eventually dies.
	The biggest predator of the hare is the fox. It might have difficulty in catching an adult hare but it can wipe out a leveret population in any given area. The hare has been hunted by wild predators over centuries and has evolved with a body perfected for quick escape: eyes well back on the head to see almost 100 per cent behind; long hind legs giving excellent power-to-weight ratio; and an agility to turn and jink when closely pursued.
	Organised coursing clubs have very strict rules and the welfare of the hare is not overlooked in the competition between the two competing dogs. Whereas beagles and harriers might perform the very useful function of removing weak and diseased hares from the population, coursing encourages a strong and thriving stock of hares on the farms and lands where it takes place.
	Like my noble friend Lord Caithness, I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. Why single out coursing for this special treatment in Clause 5 of the Bill? It is somehow exempted from government Amendment No. 56.
	There is a glaring anomaly in the Bill. The hunting and coursing of hares is to be banned, but the hunting of rabbits is to be exempted. If this is an animal welfare measure, is not the welfare of the rabbit equally compromised by being flushed by terriers out of cover and caught by other dogs on the outside?
	As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, the House of Lords should be allowed to express an opinion on what is suitable for registration. Coursing is a component of a conservation programme for hares and as such should be included. Amendments Nos. 5 to 9 would bring coursing in line with all other methods of hunting.
	We have to engage with the Bill as it is written. We may feel that coursing should be excluded from the Bill, but it is in it and we are engaging with the Bill. I believe that we should place it on the list for registration. This is the right way forward. I support the amendment.

Viscount Brookeborough: I had no intention of speaking because, coming from Northern Ireland, the Bill does not directly affect us. However, the recent debate has led me to believe that I should say something.
	I completely understand why hares are a soft spot in people's minds. They are different from foxes. They are lovely animals, with certain characteristics which endear them to us. They leave their leverets out under trees or under grass and come back to them at night; they remain there, absolutely still, and you can walk right over them. They have amazing vision, which is not 100 per cent. Hence when they run, they run in circles because they cannot see directly ahead. When a hare comes towards you on a track, you may wonder why, when it stops, it does not stop facing you but turns sideways. It cannot see directly ahead and therefore, when it is chased, it goes in a circle.
	For all these reasons hares are quite special. We have never had coursing where I live. However, everyone agrees that, under certain circumstances, hares have to be controlled. There was a time when, for two years running, we had 5,000 trees killed by hares. It was their food and so on, but damage to commercial activity is taken as a reason for killing hares.
	We used to have hare shoots where, on neighbouring land, we shot up to 180 hares a day. Looking back on it now it was a horrifying experience—and not only because of the wounding figures we have heard about. One of the terrible things with hares is that beyond a certain range—which may be from here to the Throne—you really do not know whether you have hit one. The statistics do not cover such hares, except where their bodies are found.
	The other terrible thing which affects most people who have had to shoot hares is that, compared with rabbits or even deer—of which we shoot quite a lot—they scream when they are wounded. We stopped shooting hares 20 years ago. We do not shoot hares because there is a special feeling with them, and we love them. I cannot bear it when somebody shoots one and I am there. We have snipe shooting, but there are often hares on the bogs. I ban it, not because it is a dangerous ground game, but because it is such a miserable sport—such a miserable activity—to shoot them. So often they are wounded and you never know. Those Members of the Committee who have done it will know that the back end goes down and they shoot off extra fast. The inexperienced may never realise what has happened, but others know pretty well. Then you hear this terrible screaming.
	I have no intention of being involved in this side of it. You can regulate most activities to do with culling animals. You cannot regulate shooting. You either shoot or you do not shoot—there is nothing beyond that. I have not been hare coursing. I am not sure that I would like it; I am not sure that I am for it. However, one thing is absolutely clear—it must be possible to provide regulations to ensure that the least damage possible is done to the welfare of the animals being pursued. There is no way, in my experience, that that can be done with shooting.

Viscount Astor: When one listens to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, one gets the impression that there were two Burns reports. One report, which said that hunting was cruel, was printed and given to a select few, mostly on the noble Lord's side of the House, while a second, on which the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and my noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, have spoken on many occasions, was publicly printed. It is quite extraordinary how the conclusions of the Burns report can be so clearly misrepresented on so many of these issues. I suggest to some noble Lords opposite who have spoken that they ought to reread some of the paragraphs in the Burns report.
	The amendments are not about illegal coursing as such, but about hare coursing events. That is the issue. I have already spoken about illegal coursing, the difficulties that that leads to in the countryside and the difficulties that the police have in stopping it. It is out of control.
	However, the question put to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, is how hare coursing can meet the test of utility, least suffering and wildlife management if it is submitted to the registrar. I have my doubts about whether it can pass those tests; the noble Baroness has also expressed her doubts on some of those tests. There may be an argument for wildlife management. But if we believe in registration and in the independence of a registrar, we should not be afraid of putting this to the test of registration. I think that it is most likely to fail, but that is my personal view. I am happy to accept that all those who have a view give their advice, and that the registrars take as much expert advice as they require and come to a conclusion.
	The other issue that has been discussed is whether the amendments will affect any compromise. I do not see how we can know because we do not know what the Government regard as an acceptable compromise. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will not tell us what he regards as an acceptable compromise. He will not tell us whether the Government would encourage licensed hunting or not. They do not seem to have a view. I hope that during the passage of the Bill, the Government will come to a view about what they regard as an acceptable compromise. After all, the Prime Minister has said on more than one occasion that he wants a compromise. Perhaps in the coming days the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, can ask No. 10 what that might be.
	If the Government say that hare coursing events are in their view unacceptable, they can either move their own amendment on Report or come before the House and tell us. Then we shall know what structure the Bill could have. This is an opportunity for the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to tell us something about the Government's thinking.
	I believe that there should be registration and a registrar. I am happy for hare coursing to go before the test; if it passes the test, that is fine, and if it fails the test, that is fine. Then it is up to the registrar, on sound scientific advice, to make that judgment.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I wish to make a thoughtful, short speech. I am not going to try to sum up the debate. A number of issues are important, perhaps the most important of which arises when one examines the Bill, which specifically says,
	"to prohibit hare coursing; and for connected purposes".
	One of the amendments that we are discussing this evening would change that to,
	"to prohibit unregistered hare coursing".
	My view is that the House of Commons would not have specifically put the words "to prohibit hare coursing" in the Bill, except for reasons that it holds pretty dear to its heart. One has to think about that, like it or not. I have heard a lot of very pleasant and good people in this Chamber making perfectly logical and good arguments in terms of conservation and other matters relating to hare coursing. However, we must consider the realpolitik of the matter, otherwise we could lose hunting completely. We must really think about that before going into vote.
	I have some experience of beagling, as my adjutant ordered me to do it. I can remember it well—we ran a very long distance and got knackered. I cannot remember a kill of a hare, but we got a lot fitter as a result.
	I find it difficult to support these amendments. My instinct is to support a minority, and this is a very important civil liberty issue indeed. But we must be shrewd in considering the matter. The problem is that hare coursing is specifically banned in this Hunting Bill; in fact, if the Bill is enacted, there will be only three months from the time when it goes through all its stages and receives the Royal Assent.
	The argument, as I see it, relies on registration to control hare coursing, but many people in this country believe that hare coursing is unacceptable, even if it were registered. That is the perception; as I have said, I agree with many arguments put forward by Members of the Committee, but that is the perception. Members of the Committee may say that perception makes very bad law, and I would agree with them; but if we want to retain hunting, we shall have to think very hard about those issues.
	Illegal hare coursing would be banned either way, whether we had registration or retained the existing clause in the Bill. We should think about the realpolitik of the situation, and think about it hard. The big question is this: does anyone really believe that Members of the House of Commons would accept this Bill with hare coursing in it?

Lord Denham: Is the noble Lord really suggesting to the Chamber that in order to save fox hunting we should ban coursing?

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I am saying that, because I believe that it is the view of the House of Commons and that we cannot get away from it.

Earl Peel: The noble Lord rightly criticised those who condemned fox hunting on the grounds of perception or misconception. It seems extraordinary that we could allow those who wish to continue to course hares to be condemned to the same fate. There is no moral distinction between the two. Either we allow the registrar to make a judgment or we do not. I cannot see the difference.

Lord Tordoff: I hesitate to intervene, but there seems to me to be a complete distinction between the two. I do not necessarily support the argument, but you can argue that fox hunting is getting rid of predatory creatures. Hare coursing seems to me monstrous. Here we have people letting hares loose and setting dogs on them in order to bet on the result. That is totally different from fox hunting. There is a complete distinction between the two.

Earl Peel: But does not the noble Lord agree with me that, rather than making judgments here, it would be far more sensible to allow the registrar to make that decision, which is exactly the purpose of having the system in the first place?

Lord Tordoff: I have to answer the noble Earl by saying that no, I do not agree with him. There is a fundamental difference between the two. I am not a great advocate of fox hunting, but I am totally opposed to hare coursing because the idea of people betting on the killing of wild animals just for the fun of it is, in my view, monstrous.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: There is a fine line between private conversation and debate in your Lordships' House. I hope that Members can judge where the line is.

Lord Mancroft: I would love to have lots of private conversations, but I shall try to take the noble Baroness's advice this evening and not do that.
	This has been an extraordinary and fascinating debate in many ways, and rather different from many debates that we have had about the subject during the past few years and months. I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, when he said that this is not a debate about whether one is for or against coursing.
	If coursing were as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, sincerely and passionately described it, I, too, would be dead against it. I am quite clear that it is not like that, but the noble Lord believes that it is, so his view is entirely understandable. I happen to believe that he is wrong, not because his conclusion is wrong but because the information that he has is wrong. For example, I can clarify for him that there are no points whatever in the death of a hare under the coursing club rules. That is a mistake. Lots of people get information that is mistaken. The noble Lord told us that in his absolutely best belief, I am sure of that, but I must tell him that that is a mistake—not a significant one, but there we go. But that is how these things happen.
	There is a difficulty with the amendment, or with part of it. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, rightly told us that coursing should not really be in the Bill because of the definitions. The noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, is nodding and I agree with both noble Baronesses that it should not be. But it is and we are here to deal with what is in front of us today, not with what we would like to deal with.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, told us, we must find a compromise or a political solution to this problem that lies before the Committee this evening and send that solution—I hope that it will be the absolute solution—back to another place. As we all know, that may not be what we absolutely want—the perfect solution—but we must try to find one. For instance, I am quite clear in my mind that coursing is not cruel.
	Like the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, I could never possibly shoot a hare. Like the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, I started in my schooldays as a beagler. I loved it, and I was pretty knackered too. I do not think that we caught many hares, but I am absolutely clear that shooting hares is, for me, a no-no. I could not do it; I think that it is terrible; and, yes, I hate the way that we wound so many when we shoot them. I have not shot one now for 30 years. How they scream is terrible. Fortunately, many people can do that rather better than I and it is a necessity.
	Whether we like it or not, hares will go on being shot. Those who shoot them will do so to the best of their ability; most of them will not wound them; but there will be wounding. Whether today, yesterday or tomorrow, there will be 1,000 more wounded hares every year in this country than ever are caught coursing.
	The other thing we have to face—I forget which noble Lord made the point but it is very important—is that the way in which the Bill is drafted, focusing on organised coursing events, means that in effect all this Bill will do is to ban the best regulated coursing in this country—about 5 per cent of it. That constitutes a minority of coursing. Some 95 per cent of the coursing in this country, which is unregulated, will continue. It is not caught by this Bill. It is not just a case of it continuing illegally; it is actually legal under this Bill, so it will continue. The reason is that those who drafted this Bill, after X years of studying the subject, clearly do not know anything about it. Coursing as it exists in most parts of the country will, for most parts of the year, continue legally.
	The Bill will have not the slightest effect either on what is known as illegal coursing, but is more properly known as poaching. It cannot possibly do that. I refer to the excuse that has been given. It is a most ludicrous concept that if someone speeds in a motor car, the way to deal with speeding is to ban all driving. We have illegal coursing or poaching in this country because rural police forces are under-resourced. It is plain and simple: if you want to deal with it, give the police resources to do so. We do not do that and therefore it continues. Indeed, if this Bill were to go through in its present form, the problem would grow as it would create a further vacuum for that crime to increase. That is reality; there is nothing very controversial in that.
	As I say, what we have to do is to find a solution through this very difficult area. There are two solutions on either side of the coin. The one is to go down what I call the route proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, which is to assume that this subject of coursing is such a bête noire to the House of Commons and to the Members there who have promoted this ridiculous Bill that we have to give it to them as the price of saving fox hunting, or saving tiddlywinks, or whatever it may be. We trade one principle for another. What a very unattractive idea. What an appalling thing for one House of Parliament to do with another—to trade in principles and to trade the way of life of a very small minority to save another minority. That is a very unattractive idea. I cannot imagine that in the cold light of dawn any of your Lordships would support such an idea.
	The other solution is to try to find a principled way forward that we can all support in principle if not, possibly, in practice. I refer to a middle ground—not a middle way; that is the wrong term at the moment—a compromise; something that we can all sign up to. I quite like what the Government originally proposed, which was a Bill based on evidence and principle. That is a nice way forward, which is why I have supported—and joined, as the fifth member of the gang of four—the attempt to move the measure forward in that way. If we have decided that the registration principle—which your Lordships overwhelmingly agreed earlier today—is the way forward, why would we now abandon it the wrong side of dinner, having spent so long deciding that it was the right way forward?
	We should not here in this Chamber tonight make a judgment on coursing. We should place our judgment and our confidence in the registrar who we overwhelmingly decided this afternoon was the right man to decide these things. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, made the strongest point in that regard a few minutes ago when she said that the one point—the only point—in the Portcullis House hearings on which everyone agreed was that in principle all mammals should be treated the same. After all these years of Burns reports, Portcullis House hearings and consultations, only one single principle has been agreed by everyone and the first time an awkward subject comes up we abandon it. That cannot be a very clever idea. It cannot be the right thing to do.
	We have a choice this evening. We either go for expediency and try to second guess the other place or we operate in a way that we know is right which is based on principle, and we trust the registrar. Many Members of the Committee do not have a natural affection for coursing. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, is one of those who does not find it the most appealing way to spend his afternoons, but perhaps he could be prevailed on to trust the independent registrar who will be appointed and the independent tribunal that can be appealed to. If we do not trust independent registrars, tribunals to which people can appeal and the prescribed animal welfare groups that can give evidence, there is no point in our proceeding with the Bill at all, and we should chuck it out and tell the other place to do the same.
	The choice is between expediency—having agreed with the process and decided to go along with it, to duck it and abandon it at the first opportunity—or sticking to what the Committee decided this afternoon. Although not everyone agrees with it, it is a principled way forward. We should stick to the principle and have faith in the registrar. Whether we like tiddlywinks, coursing or anything else, we should trust the process that the Committee overwhelmingly agreed to follow this afternoon.

Baroness Byford: I shall be very quick after that contribution by my noble friend; he said nearly everything I wish to say, so I shall not repeat it. I accept that the views expressed around the Chamber are very strongly held. I should declare an interest: I have never been to a hare coursing event, and I suspect that it is something to which I would not particularly wish to go. However, 18 Members of the Committee have spoken, so it is obviously something of direct interest to noble Lords.
	I want to make a couple of quick observations. The difficulty for some people is that they tend to think of illegal hare coursing as opposed to organised hare coursing events. The noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, said that her experience was from 1979, and she rightly said that things had probably changed since then. I am sure that others in the Chamber agree that they have changed; to be perfectly honest, they probably jolly well needed to. However, as my noble friend said very clearly, we may be in the position of having to stick by our guns of saying that all species should be treated in the same way.
	I would be very doubtful that some hare coursing would qualify for registration, but that is no reason to deny it the opportunity to be considered for it. Whether we are for or against hare coursing is not the issue. The nub of the issue is whether it should be taken out and dealt with in a different way. Many Members of the Committee would not wish to see hare coursing where it is, but it is in that position.
	I say to colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches that it would be desperately easy to take the easy way out and say, "Let's make this an offering to the Commons". This House showed this afternoon that we are not a House to take things lightly—that we take very difficult steps, otherwise we would have said that there was no compromise to be reached. We could have a Bill to ban hunting totally—including hare coursing—and say that we could not make any difference, in which case we need not debate this issue at all.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: When I—and I believe that it is the case for other colleagues—voted earlier today for registration, it was for the hunting of animals to be registered, not for animals to be used for sport to be registered.

Baroness Byford: In fairness, I did not say that. I happened to have the pleasure of sitting next to the noble Baroness at supper; we obviously disagree, but my difficulty with the views expressed from the Liberal Democrat Benches on the issue—a free-vote issue—is that it is so easy to opt out, but I do not think that we have that option. It is up to each and every one of us to make a very difficult decision tonight. Some, like me, have never hare-coursed and would never want to, but why should coursing be different? That is the issue before us.
	I shall not go over all the arguments that have been made so clearly and passionately by those who are total opponents on the issue. However, I think it would be irresponsible of the Committee to take the easy way out by saying that we should not consider the issue but sacrifice it to the Commons. I for one am not prepared to do that.

Lord Whitty: I have to say to the Committee that if the vote which I assume may be taken on this amendment follows the balance of the debate, then I despair of ever finding a spirit of compromise in this House. It seems to me that, having adopted a registration system, trying to force hare coursing through the same criteria as are applied to hunting is not only illogical, but a repulsive way of trying to justify an activity that—for reasons explained by my noble friend Lord Faulkner, and even more graphically by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff—is in an entirely different category.

Lord Eden of Winton: Why, then, is it within the Hunting Bill? Why did the Government not deal with it in a totally separate Bill?

Lord Whitty: The Bill has covered the issue from the beginning, and "from the beginning" means the Bill that Alun Michael brought to the House of Commons. That Bill, which most noble Lords have purported at least in principle to support, has always covered hare coursing. It has always covered a ban on hare coursing, full stop. Those who claim that they are following that principle are distorting the history of the Bill and trying, as I say, to force hare coursing into the same criteria as hunting—whereas public opinion, opinion by and large in the House of Commons and most opinion generally is that, at the very least, a severe restriction on hare coursing is necessary, and most people would go for a complete ban.
	The Committee in another place went further than a ban on hare coursing and banned hunting, which indicates that its view on the protection of hares is at least as deeply entrenched as the view of some noble Lords in defence of hare coursing. If the wish is to get the House of Commons to compromise, it is unlikely that it will accept the deletion of the prohibition on hare coursing. I think that that reality has to be faced, but I am afraid that few of your Lordships have faced it tonight. It has been spelt out very clearly to the Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer.

Lord Mancroft: The noble Lord implied that he has some sort of knowledge of what the House of Commons would do. Is that correct, or is he presupposing? Or does the noble Baroness know something that he and we do not know?

Lord Whitty: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, is being na-ve. It is pretty obvious what the House of Commons thinks about hare coursing, and it is not just in the past year or two that it has reached that conclusion. In many respects, hare coursing has been the target of the House of Commons, even under previous governments. It is true that this is the first time that it has got as far as legislation, but the position of the House of Commons is absolutely clear. Perhaps there are grey areas on other issues, but on this issue, there is no grey area.
	Personally, I find the whole concept of hare coursing pretty distressing. For reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, explained, we are not dealing with something that might in certain circumstances be justified on the basis of pest control. Absolutely no criteria based on that form of utility would provide a justification for hare coursing. I appreciate that, in the next group of amendments, noble Lords will try to extend the utility clause to cover conservation. However, that is a pretty narrow and unlikely ground to justify hare coursing.
	The net effect of those two factors is that, by adopting this amendment, this House would be saying to the House of Commons, "We are extending way beyond the Alun Michael Bill by deleting the prohibition on hare coursing, and we justify it by another means, by extending the Alun Michael Bill into an area that has not hitherto been accepted by the House of Commons". That stretches beyond belief the view that the House of Lords is genuinely involved in trying to establish a dialogue to engage with the Bill and to look for compromise.

Baroness Byford: So is the noble Lord suggesting to the House that the sacrifice of hare coursing is part of the compromise deal of which we talked earlier?

Lord Whitty: There is no deal. There is certainly no deal with me. There is a potential to engage in discussion with the House of Commons. If this House genuinely wishes to engage with the House of Commons you will not get to square one if you delete hare coursing.
	There are two other points that I should mention. Regarding illegal hare coursing, we know of some pretty horrific stories. Even those who support organised hare coursing object to most illegal hare coursing and poaching. The view of the police is that if we have a clearer definition indicating that all hare coursing events are banned, their position will be improved. This clause would ban all hare coursing, whether currently legal or illegal and formal or informal. The police would have an easier job, not a more difficult one, as has been suggested by some noble Lords.
	My other point is that even if the amendments are passed, they are defective in terms of how the registration system would work, because they seek to proceed by providing for the registration of events, but the other registration provisions operate by registering persons who are allowed to undertake hunting. Therefore, further amendment would be necessary to make it fit the criteria that applies to hunting. I make that point because, even if one passed the amendments, we would not be in a position where they would be workable in the spirit of the rest of the Bill regarding the registration proposals that we adopted before dinner.
	There are strong moral arguments against hare coursing. There is a strong tactical argument for this House not to agree to the deletion of the prohibition of hare coursing. There are strong enforcement arguments in favour of banning all hare coursing. If your Lordships nevertheless propose tonight, or at any point, to go down that road then noble Lords will have to consider carefully what they are doing, as the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, said. We are, perhaps, at a crucial point in the discussion of the Bill and the outcome of the vote tonight will be a clear indication to the country, as well as to the House of Commons, of where noble Lords actually stand.

Baroness Byford: Perhaps I may intervene before the noble Baroness responds. I suggested that perhaps hare coursing was something that might be sacrificed in the way of compromise. Now we have extracted that from the Minister, although he said that he was not aware of a deal. I did not say that he was; I just said that that had been suggested. Are there any other issues in the Bill of which we should be aware to which a "no-go" area such as this would apply? It would help if we were told that before we finished tonight.

Lord Whitty: We are discussing the amendment. As we progress to other amendments, no doubt a number of issues will arise and the attitudes expressed on those issues could, in certain circumstances, help to inform a constructive dialogue with the House of Commons and the Government. If, however, noble Lords pass the amendment tonight, there is probably not an area where there is any compromise likely to be forthcoming from the House of Commons. That is the importance of the particular decision that now faces us.

Baroness Golding: I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has said but I have to say to him that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, said that all mammals should be treated the same. There can be no moral principle in sacrificing one mammal to save others. I intend to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 67; Not-Contents, 54.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Lord Donoughue: moved Amendments Nos. 6 to 9:
	Page 2, line 4, leave out "a" and insert "an unregistered"
	Page 2, line 5, leave out "a" and insert "an unregistered"
	Page 2, line 6, leave out "a" and insert "an unregistered"
	Page 2, line 8, leave out second "a" and insert "an unregistered"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.
	House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past ten o'clock.